查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 行政主體向人民主張公法上返還請求權之法律途徑及其返還範圍--以授益處分經自行撤銷之情形為例
- 行政主體向人民請求返還公法上不當得利之法律途徑
- 行政機關行使公法上返還請求權之法律途徑--行政程序法第127條之修正
- 論不法原因溢付稅款之公法上退稅請求權--以最高行政法院104年度判字第377號判決為例
- 公法上不當得利返還請求權之實現--評最高行政法院九十二年判字第六二○號判決
- 行政主體間行使公法上返還請求權之法律途徑--中央健康保險局得否以行政處分命臺北市政府給付健保費之補助款?
- 進口蘋果權利標售與行政契約:評最高行政法院95年度判字第00815判決暨台北高等行政法院92年度訴字第5337號判決
- 公法返還請求權--2006年2月臺灣最高行政法院決議評釋
- 土地事務於信賴保護與公益原則之適用
- 論信賴保護原則在稅捐稽徵實務上之應用
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 行政主體向人民主張公法上返還請求權之法律途徑及其返還範圍--以授益處分經自行撤銷之情形為例=The Return Range and Legal Action of Public Law Returning Claim of Administrative Subject against People--An Example of the Self-Revocation of Benefit Decision |
---|---|
作 者 | 劉建宏; | 書刊名 | 東吳法律學報 |
卷 期 | 19:2 2007.10[民96.10] |
頁 次 | 頁175-222 |
分類號 | 588.3 |
關鍵詞 | 公法上返還請求權; 公法上不當得利; 反面理論; 給付決定; 信賴保護原則; Öffentlich-rechtlicher erstattungsanspruch; Kehrseitentheorie; Leistungsbescheid; Vertrauensschutz; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 公法上返還請求權之類型,依請求權人及被請求對象之不同,可分為:人民向行政主體請求、行政主體間相互請求及行政主體向人民請求三種。本文所探討者,為行政主體向人民主張公法上返還請求權之類型。行政程序法第一二七條第一項規定:「授予利益之行政處分,其內容係提供一次或連續之金錢或可分物之給付者,經撤銷、廢止或條件成就而有溯及既往失效之情形時,受益人應返還因該處分所受領之給付。其行政處分經確認無效者,亦同」。依此,行政主體如以授益處分提供人民給付,可能因原處分嗣後經撤銷、廢止或條件成就而有溯及既往失放之情形,主張返還請求權;可能因原處分自始無效,而主張返還請求權。 本文擬於違法授益處分經撤銷之範圍內,探討以下問題: 一、行政主體向人民主張公法上返還請求權時,其法律途徑究竟為何?得逕以行政處分命其返還,抑或須向行政法院提起一般給付之訴? 二、行政主體向人民主張公法上返還請求權時,其返還請求權之範國如何?得否請求利息?相對人得否主張其所受之利益已不存在而免負返還責任? |
英文摘要 | The Public Law Returning Claim can be divided into three types based on the right holders of claim and the object claim against: people claim against administrative subjects, claims between administrative subjects and administrative subjects claim against people. This article will explore the type of administrative subjects claiming public law returning right against people. The Paragraph 1, article 127 of the Administrative Procedure Law states that “where the content of the beneficial decision are one time or continuing payments of money or separable goods and the decisions were trace back ineffective due to revoking, terminating or condition fulfilling, the beneficial people shall return the payment from this decision. This principle also applies into the situation where the decisions were recognized as ineffective.” According to this provision, administrative subjects may claim against people for returning payment based on the legal foundation of where the beneficial decisions were trace back ineff ective due to revoking, terminating or condition fulfilling or the initial invalidity of beneficial decision. This article will discuss the following questions under the condition where the illegal beneficial decisions were revoked: 1.What is the proper legal action for administrative subjects claim public law returning right against people? Can they issue an order for requesting return directly or file a general payment claim to Administrative Court? 2. What is the range of returning right when administrative subjects claim public law returning right against people? Can they claim the interest of payment? Can the people argue that the retuning duty shall be released since the payments received were no longer existed? |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。