我國社會法於近30、40年，因解嚴及各種社會運動之推促，發展始趨於蓬勃。然相較於德國等先進國家，實施社會福利、落實安全法制已逾百年以上之經驗，我國相關社會法規制定，顯得較不完備。以行政機關追繳相對人溢領社會給付事件為例，撤銷金錢給付授益行政處分需符合行政程序法上一定要件，並生特定之法律效果，前者如審查受益人之信賴值得保護與否、行政機關之撤銷權有無逾越除斥期間、後者則關乎溯及既往撤銷後公法上不當得利如何操作問題等。以前述行政程序法、我國繼受法德國法為對照標準，會發現作為特別法之社會法規立法多不細緻，甚至有規範上之漏洞，如忽略審查相對人信賴是否值得保護、並未有專屬之除斥期間規定及行政機關實現公法上不當得利方式不一致等情形，相關問題均須進一步解釋或有修法之必要。Since Martial Law had been declared to end and then brought about huge wave of revolution from all kinds of social movements, Social Security Law has developed fast for 30-40 years in Taiwan.However, comparing with Germany and other modern countries which have abundant experience about executing social welfare and security system over a century, Taiwanese Social Security Law isn’t mature .Taking administrative agency that reclaims the monetary payment by the affected party who was overcompensated for example, it must follow the procedure prescribed by administrative law when the beneficial administrative act be cancelled. For instance, administrative agency has to examine the beneficiary who has not done any of the acts specified in Administrative Procedure Act article 119 hereof, making him deserve no protection of his reliance(Administrative Procedure Act Article 117), and Preclusive Period of revocation right hasn’t due date (Administrative Procedure Act Article 121) . After revocation , the effect in public law for administrative is to apply unjust enrichment in public law appropriately (Administrative Procedure Act Article 127) .Social Security Law is the special law of Administrative Procedure Act ,and the Administrative law in Taiwan were modeled after German legislation (such as Federal Administrative Procedure Act and Social Administrative Procedure Act). Thus using the foresaid Administrative Procedure Act Articles and German Law a model checking, it will be found that Social Security Law fails to provide adequate protection for affected party. Due to negligence, legislators don’t ask administrative agency to examine the principle of reliance protection in some articles. Besides, neither law nor legal order of Social Security made the detailed Preclusive Period for social affairs characteristic’s sake, and the way for administrative agency to execute the unjust enrichment in public law isn’t identical . All the foregoing problems this study have to handle.
