年金為社會法學上之重大課題，尤其近年之年金改革更引發對於年金之熱烈討論。惟相關討論幾乎集中於老年年金給付，遺屬年金並未吸引社會法學者關注。然而，遺屬年金在審判實務上，值得討論之問題不少，尤其請領遺屬年金之權利受否受憲法保障，尤為問題所在。此於司法院作成釋字第766號解釋後，更顯得有必要。本研究因此擬集中於以下問題之檢討：- 公法上具財產價值權利與私法上權利有何不同？其是否受憲法上財產權所考慮者為何？- 社會保險遺屬年金給付是否受憲法上財產權保障？財產權保障與生存權保障之關係如何？如何認定社會保險給付請求權是否兼受生存權保障？- 就我國具體制度而言，國民年金保險遺屬年金給付是否受財產權保障？其是否受生存權保障？- 公務人員法上之遺屬年金受否受憲法保障？若受憲法保障，其保障依據為何？- 實務上遺屬年金相關見解之評析。 ;Pension is the important topic in law of social security. Especially the recent pension reform came into public notice. But the relevant academic discussions focused on old age pension. In the academic Discussions on social security was surviving family pension ignored. surviving family pension is at the same time in the jurisdictional praxis controversial, especially the problem whether surviving family pension is constitutionally guaranteed. This become necessarily especially after constitutional Interpretation No. 766 has been given. This project focuses therefor on the following topics:- What is different between the public rights with property value and the rights in civic law? Under whether conditions the public rights with property value constitutionally can be guaranteed？- Can surviving family pension be property in constitutional law? How is the relation between the right of property and the right of existence in constitutional law? How to determine whether the rights to payment of social insurance is guaranteed by the right of existence too?- Is the surviving family pension payment property in constitutional law? Is it guaranteed by the right of existence?- Is the surviving family pension in law of public servant property in constitutional law? By whether fundamental right is it then guaranteed?- Then the relevant decision in the praxis will be analyzed.