| 摘要: | 我國社會法之發展逐漸成熟，然而相較於其他公法領域，仍有許多待研究之議題，而今日社會逐漸開始重視社會法領域，社會給付請求權為社會法之法律關係之核心問題，應如何請求、請求依據、以及時效等等問題即屬社會法重要議題。
於本文之初，先探究何謂社會給付請求權，釐清社會給付請求權之發展背景、定義以及依據，並確立社會給付請求權於憲法上所受之保障。
接著，因社會給付請求權一旦發生且得行使時，公法上消滅時效即開始計算，故分析何時社會給付請求權發生時點，消滅時效制度於社會給付請求權如何適用，此外，觀諸社會法上除了請求權消滅時效之規定，亦見有申請期限之規範，除法律明文規定申請期限，亦可見主管主管以命令方式訂定申請期限，然此皆係限制人民應於一定期限內為申請的規定。依據司法院大法官釋字第609號、釋字第723號皆明示公法上請求權之消滅時效應受法律保留原則拘束，故主管機關逕以命令規定申請期間，而申請期間實乃請求權消滅時效時，即為增加法律上所無之限制，違反法律保留原則；反之，若申請期間並非屬請求權之消滅時效，乍看無法律保留原則之適用，惟查，申請期間實質上仍限縮請求權之消滅時效，故仍以法律明文定，較為妥適。
又當人民取得社會給付請求權時，行政主體負有給付義務，構成行政主體與社會給付請求權人間債權債務關係，行政法定有規定時依其為之，但當行政法上漏未規範時，如社會給付請求權之繼受、代位以及遲延利息等情形，則於特性相容範圍內，並合乎社會法之目的與特性下，類推適用民法之規定。
此外，由於為保障社會安全與社會公平，透過許多不同之社會法規定，相互羅織成一個社會安全網，因此人民可能同時或先後取得數個社會給付請求權，惟，基於社會法上不重複給付原則，當複數社會給付請求權發生時，將產生社會給付請求權競合與保障不足之問題，故制度上應如何調適不重複給付原則與保障不足，即為重點。
最後，本文提出研究結論並提出建議，冀望未來社會法之發展能夠更加完備，以達社會法為保障社會安全與社會公平，令社會給付請求權人之權利能受到更多關注及保障。
;The social security law in Taiwan has become mature. Compared with other public laws, however, there are still issues to be discussed. As the social security law has gradually been valued, the major problems, such as how to request, the legal basis of the request, and the limitation period in social benefit claims have become crucial.
At first, we would discuss the meaning of social benefit claims, clarify its background, definition, and legal basis, and ensure its legal assurance within the Constitution.
Then, since the rules about extinctive prescription would start if the social benefit claims should be exercised, we analyze the time when the social benefit claims take place and how the rules about extinctive prescription are applied. Furthermore, in the social security law, besides the rules about extinctive prescription, there are also the rules about the limitation period of the application. Both laws and the competent authority regulate the limitation period, which means the people should apply within a certain period of time. Based on J.Y Interpretation No. 609 and No. 723, it is clearly stated that the rules about extinctive prescription should be under the constrain of the Legal Retention Principle. Therefore, authority regulate the limitation period that means extinctive prescription,which is breach of regulation. On the contrary, if the application period is not within the extinctive prescription, the Legal Retention Principle is not applicable at first glance; however, the application period is still within the extinctive prescription. Therefore, it is more adequate to regulate it by law.
When the people acquire the social benefit claims, the subject of administration is obliged to offer, constructing the relation of debtor and creditor. When the Administrative Law regulates, follow its acts. However, such as the reception of the social benefit claims, or the creditor exercise in his the name of himself any right of the debtor which the debtor , or defered performance, the Civil Law can be applied when it is under the purpose and feature of the Social Security Law.
Besides, in order to ensure the social security and the social equity, the social safety net is formed with several social security regulations. Therefore, the people can obtain several social benefit claims simultaneously or successively. However, based on the non-repetitive principle, issues like social security claim concurrence and the lack of protection would happen. How to reach the balance between non-repetitive principle and the lack of protection by law is the key.
At last, the essay offers the research conclusion and suggestion, hoping the development of the Social Security Law can be more complete to ensure the social security and social equity. Also, the right of the social security claimer can be focused and protected. |
