本文旨在檢討，在我國法下受託人違反信託之限制（或本旨），處分信託財產於第三人時，受益人之救濟內容為何，以及其理論基礎何在。在我國信託法下，若受託人違反信託所加之限制或本旨而處分信託財產於第三人時，受益人基本上有兩種救濟手段。第一、受益人得對受託人請求損害賠償。惟有疑問者係，該損害賠償之法律性質為何？縱使一般見解認其為債務不履行責任，本文認為，應從債務不履行之層面，更進一步深入檢討，並應釐清其是否係屬契約責任。第二、受益人可藉由撤銷權之行使，追及信託財產。換言之，我國信託法第18條賦予受益人一個得對抗第三人的撤銷權；即受益人得撤銷受託人與受讓人間之處分。惟有疑問者係，撤銷在體系理論之觀點言之，是否可謂係適當之救濟手段。若是，其法理基礎何在；若不是，受益人之救濟，應如何處理。本文將通過一個思維轉換，對於上述議題，試提供另一視角，將使受益人之救濟方法及其理論基礎，能在「體系上」以及「理論上」，皆得穩定建立以及融合於我國法之體系架構之內。

When a trustee disposes of trust funds to a third party in breach of trust, the beneficiary will have, inter alia, two remedies that he can resort to: the right to ask compensation against the trustee and the right to rescind the disposition concluded between the trustee and the third party transferee. As to the former remedy, question arises regarding its legal nature, for trust under Taiwanese law can be created by contract, will, and self-declaration, thus it seems impossible to maintain consistency as concerned with the legal nature of the liability to compensate owed by the trustee due to its different modes of creation: therefore the first part of the paper tries to establish a unified nature for trustee's liability to compensate. As to the latter remedy, we must answer whether the rescission is a doctrinally and systematically viable remedy under the current legal system, for, as we shall see in the paper, the law seems want of any legal justification in according to the beneficiary a right to meddle with the transaction entered into between the trustee and the transferee since the beneficiary is a non-party to the relevant transaction: the law might need to change its original paradigm and take a different approach. These are the two main issues to which the work is devoted.