我國勞工遭受職業災害時，除可申請職災補償外，於符合民法上的要件時，尚可請求雇主負民事損害賠償責任。惟我國勞基法或勞保條例，就職災勞保給付與雇主民法上的賠償責任間的抵充規定，並未加以規範。則此時，雇主可否依民法第216條之1，主張損益相抵，要求應自受災勞工請求之賠償金額，扣除其所受領之職災勞保給付，實不無疑義。再者，隨著勞保給付年金化的實施，因年金總額無法事先確定，則雇主欲主張損益相抵時，應如何計算扣除之金額亦有進一步探討的必要。職災救濟制度與我國十分相近的日本，於勞保給付年金化甫施行之際，對於年金應否抵充民事賠償金額，學說及實務上有未來尚未給付之年金亦應予以扣除之「控除說」，與僅能就受災勞工實際上已受領之年金加以扣除之「非控除說」之爭。其後最高法院採取非控除說，日本並因此而立法，然學界對現行法仍多所批判。本文擬檢討日本相關規定制定的歷程，及其間實務見解及學說議論的狀況，設法統整出雇主的民事損害賠償責任與勞保職災年金給付間應如何抵充，就尚未受領的年金是否應予抵充及其抵充數額如何計算之法律問題進行詳實而完整的分析，冀能為我國未來解決此一問題，提供參考的方向。

Worker accident victims may litigate the liability for damages of certain employers who have civil responsibility, and the amount of workers' accident insurance benefits will be deducted from the amount of damages awardable against the employers. However, the introduction of pensions into workers' accident insurance, under which a yearly pension is received by the accident victim, raised the question of how future pension benefits are to be treated in the adjustment of workers' accident insurance benefits with damages.With respect to this issue, legal commentators and the courts were divided between those advocating a ”non-deduction theory” (i.e. the view that future pension benefits should not be subtracted from damages) and a ”deduction theory” in Japan. However, the Supreme Court adopted the non-deduction theory, and then in the revision of the Workers' Accident Insurance Law, a provision was adopted to adjust damages with insurance benefits.From the both theoretical and practical aspects, through an analysis of the Japan experiences and the reflection on jurisdiction in Taiwan, this research will try to find some reasonable interpretations to solve the related problems.