有關都市計畫變更的爭議，以往實務上皆以司法院大法官解釋第156號將個案變更認定是行政處分而得提起行政爭訟；反之，通盤檢討變更則屬法規命令而無法單獨對其提起行政爭訟，此種解釋造成因為通盤檢討變更，而限制土地使用方式之人民無法對此提出救濟，進而導致人民與行政機關之間衝突不斷。 對此，司法院大法官於第742號解釋將通盤檢討中具體項目以個案判斷的方式，認定當具有行政處分性質時得以違法行政處分方式加以救濟，此種解釋方式是否真能解決本原因案件救濟爭議問題？抑或只是徒增實務困擾？而學說上是否有不同的解決方式，乃為本研究之討論中心。 本研究以釋字第742號原因案件之判決出發，評析該類型案件在實務運作上所遇到的救濟困境以及爭議，並簡評釋字第742號解釋以及後續的草案內容所產生的問題。之後進一步介紹學說上其他見解，其中針對此種直接產生限制人民權利的法規命令，學說上有認為得透過確認訴訟制度加以救濟，本文認為對於具直接限制人民權利性質的通盤檢討變更之救濟爭議相當具有參考價值，因此於文中加以介紹。學說上以及少數實務認為，對於直接形成當事人權利義務關係的法規命令，可以透過確認訴訟，請求法院確認公法上法律關係之存否，並附帶審查該法規命令，此種見解應可以有效解決通盤檢討變更之救濟爭議，也不牴觸權力分立原則。故本研究即以此概念實際操作本號解釋之原因案件，希望可以提供實務另一個面向的想法。;After the case revealed by Interpretations No. 156 of the Judicial Yuan. The periodic Comprehensive review of the urban planning that was identified as a regulation, not an administrative act, thus could not institute appeal or administrative litigations as a form of relief. In Interpretation No. 742, when a specific part thereof either directly restricts the rights and privileges of specific individuals within a certain region or of an identifiable group of individuals, or imposes additional obligations on such individuals, based on the constitutional principle of where there is a right, there must be a remedy, the said individuals should be allowed to seek redress for the infringement imposed by that specific part by filing an administrative appeal or initiating court proceedings in an administrative court. The focus of this study is that whether Interpretation No. 742 can really solve the problem of relief controversy, or just burden judge with these cases？In addition are there any different solution to this controversy？ This study started with the Interpretation No. 742 and analyzed the controversy about encountered in the Court operation of this type of case. It also briefly explained the Interpretation No. 742 as well as introduced the follow-up draft content. It was proposed that can be solved through the Declaratory relief of current administrative litigation system for this kind of the Regulation that was directly restricting the rights of the people. This study thinks that was worthy of reference for the relief controversy. In the few of the doctrine and Court practices, it could be argued in case the Regulation directly formed the rights and obligations. People could request the Court to confirm the existence of a legal relationship in the public law and review the Regulation. This view not only can deal with the disputes about the Comprehensive review of the urban planning change effectively, but also safeguard the Separation of powers. Therefore, this study takes the concept to operate these two cases as a demonstration, hoping to provide other ideas for Court.