在保險業務員之案例中，與其他職業種類或勞務給付者有所不同，甚至導致司法院釋字第740號解釋之產生，其原因之一為「保險業務員管理規則」。對於保險業務員管理規則之存在，是否使保險業務員與其所屬保險公司間具有人格從屬性，民事法院與行政法院具有見解上之歧異，司法院釋字第740號解釋則認為「不得逕以保險業務員管理規則為認定依據」。對此，本文剖析該號解釋後指出，對於保險業務員管理規則在私人法律關係認定上之定位，該號解釋仍遺留許多尚未明確意識到，從而未處理之課題。本文全面地檢視過往實務及學說見解，並從數個面向切入，釐清真正問題所在及其原因，乃因保險業務員管理規則使保險業務員及其所屬保險公司間之法律關係，已有別於一般契約當事人間之對等關係，另保險業務員管理規則之目的雖非在限定契約之類型，但其行政上之監理，與勞動契約之判斷相同，均是以「招攬保險行為」此一勞務給付行為作為其對象，內容上無可避免地產生重疊，此乃保險業務員管理規則在勞動契約之認定上，難以定位之原因。對此困境，本文分別從保險公司與保險業務員二者之觀點切入，發現或許只剩下將保險業務員除外適用，搭配相對應配套措施之一途。

In the cases of the insurance solicitors, the difference between the other workers, which even contributes to J.Y. Interpretation No. 740, is Regulations Governing the Supervision of Insurance Solicitors. The court and the administrative court hold different opinions regarding whether or not Regulations Governing the Supervision of Insurance Solicitors leads to personal subordinate relation between the insurance solicitors and the insurance companies, and J.Y. Interpretation No. 740 holds that the judgement shall not be made only according to it. This thesis analyzes J.Y. Interpretation No. 740 and points out that it still left some unresolved problems. By a comprehensive review of the opinions of the Court and scholars, and analyzation in several aspects, this thesis clarifies the core problems and the consequences are that Regulations Governing the Supervision of Insurance Solicitors has exerted an influence on the original relationship of equals between the insurance solicitors and the insurance companies, and although the purpose of Regulations Governing the Supervision of Insurance Solicitors is not to define the nature of the contract, the object of its supervision, which is the behavior of soliciting insurance, is also the basis of the judgement of labor contract. After analyzing from the viewpoint of the insurance solicitors and the insurance companies respectively, this thesis believes that exemption from the Labor Standards Act with complementary measures is the solution to this dilemma.