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？

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?