本文所謂的臥底偵查，係指為抗制特別危險之重大犯罪或偵查困難度極高之犯罪，刑事偵查機關為達成追訴犯罪並實現國家具體刑罰權之目的，在一定期間內安置具有司法警察身分或不具司法警察身分之人員蟄伏於犯罪組織或犯罪環境中，以隱匿真實身分之方式蒐集犯罪證據及提供犯罪情報之特殊偵查方法。 臥底偵查目的既在於臥底者以隱匿真實身分之方式，暗中蒐集犯罪證據以及提供犯罪資訊，然運用此種特殊偵查手段的結果卻有可能會侵害到人民受憲法保障之隱私權、秘密通訊權、居住自由權、資訊自決權等基本權利或牴觸不自證己罪、人性尊嚴等憲法原則，故刑事偵查機關如運用臥底偵查而攫取龐大訴追利益的同時，亦逾越基本權利的保護界限，則該臥底偵查行為自宜定性為干預基本權之強制處分，此時，如臥底偵查仍未取得法律授權基礎，其取得之證據自有罹於無證據能力之虞。 鑑於法務部以及立法院均已提出不同版本之臥底偵查法草案，以期將實務上行之有年但卻備受適法性指摘之臥底偵查予以法制化，是以在方法上，本文將就臥底取證規範之現行規定與未來立法動向進行必要之比對，換言之，本文除將論述在現行法制不備的情況下，如何透過學說上法哲學、法解釋學之觀點或歷來實務判例(決)累積之見解，在臥底取證可能面臨之適法性困境及兼顧人權保障的議題上，提供一個兼具「發現真實」與「程序保障」的調和解決方式。此外，針對臥底偵查在取證規範上之立法趨勢，本文亦期能就相關草案中有待商榷或有所疏漏之處提出建言，以達到適時導正立法動向與彌補規範漏洞之研究目的。 本文架構之舖陳，首先，擬先行探討臥底偵查可能違反哪些「法律」規定之取證規範，換言之，亦即先行探討臥底偵查之「違法」取證與證據排除之程序關聯問題，而這些「法律」規定之取證規範，有刑事程序法之規定，有刑事實體法之規定，另亦有兼具刑事程序法與實體法性質之規定，本文在上開取證法律中，將先探討具有共通規範性質的取證規定，再依取證手段及取證客體之差異次第論述個別取證規定的違反與證據排除之關聯性。 其次，再上探臥底取證可能違反之「憲法」規定或憲法原則，換言之，亦即探討臥底偵查之「違憲」取證與證據排除之關聯問題，由於作為「應用憲法」之刑事訴訟法與憲法的關係極為直接而密切，故在判斷某一證據有無證據能力時，現行法律有無規定並非唯一依據，蓋如憲法基於維護更高價值的考量，則縱使國家機關取證過程合法，其所取得之證據也未必有證據能力，是以論究臥底取證可能違反哪些「憲法」規定或憲法原則以及與證據排除之關聯爰有必要。

老年所得保障的問題，是所有工業化國家所共有的社會問題。臺灣、德國與美國為了解決這個問題，基本上都是採用所謂的「三層保障的模式」。第一層保障為國家所建立的強制性社會保險制度，第二層保障為企業或雇主所設立的企業退休給付制度，第三層為個人的自我預護（包括儲蓄、保險、置產等）。本文主要是探討第二層的「企業退休給付制度」之法律問題。臺灣的「企業退休給付制度」（也稱之為「企業退休金制度」），是採強制性為主，自願性為輔的雙軌制度，自願性制度所佔比例無足輕重。在強制性制度中的實施型態是採「單數型態」，而且由「單一組織」承擔實施。美國的「企業退休給付制度」稱為「年金（退休金）計劃(pension plan)」，德國的「企業退休給付(betriebliche Altersversorgung)制度」也稱為「企業年金(Betriebsrenten)制度」。這兩個國家向來都是採用自願性制度，「實施型態」與「實施機構」也都是採「複數型態」。 關於企業退休給付的法律保障，臺灣於1984年在勞動基準法中納入「退休規定」，對勞工退休金制度的設立、實施型態、實施機構、財務準備與給付內容皆制定最低的法律標準，然而對於勞工的退休金期待利益如何保障與雇主陷於支付不能時退休金請求權如何保障等重要問題，皆欠缺規定。德國於1974年制定「改善企業退休給付法」，採有限度的立法，對已設立的企業退休給付制度制定最低法定基準，特別注重「退休給付期待利益之保障」與「退休給付支付不能時之保障」；同一年美國也制定「勞工退休所得保障法」，採取全面性的立法，不僅注重「勞工退休給付權利之保障（包括對退休給付期待利益之保障）」，也同樣針對「退休計劃之終止與支付不能的情形」設有特別的保障。 本文主要是以臺灣的「勞基法退休規定」，德國的「改善企業退休給付法」與美國的「勞工退休所得保障法」等法律規定為基礎。針對同一問題，分別探討臺灣、德國與美國的法律制度。第一節首先探討企業退休給付制度之歷史發展，企業退休給付制度究竟如何形成？如何逐步擴展？法律如何回應？在立法之後又面臨何種問題？第二節首先討論退休給付制度的核心法律概念，以及其如何與雇主的其他給付相區別。接著進一步探究勞工請求雇主給付退休金之法律基礎為何？然後再探討企業退休給付之法律性質。第三節分析企業退休給付制度，以何種型態實施，如何運作，在組織上產生何種法律關係。第四節探討企業退休給付的財務準備。第五節以給付為中心，探討企業退休給付的一般法律保障，包括：請求退休金的法律要件為何？請求範圍如何決定？如何與社會保險給付整合？如何支付？在面對通貨膨脹壓力時又如何因應？第六節探討企業退休給付期待利益如何保障之問題，詳細探討德國與美國為何要保障退休給付期待利益？在何種情形下，退休給付期待利益不可喪失？勞工退休時，退休給付期待利益如何實現為退休給付，如何計算其數額？勞工離職時，可否一次結清將來的退休給付權利？勞工轉換工作時，退休金債權是否可隨同移轉？最後一節探討退休給付發生支付不能之情形時，有何解決辦法？第五章比較三國退休給付法律制度有何異同？有何優缺點？並檢討行政院勞工委員會所提的「勞工老年附加年金保險險制度」草案，與「勞工退休金條例草案」之優缺點，並探討我國勞工退休金制度法律改革是否存在其他不同的途徑。？最後一章總結前面各章之研究所得作成結論。 / Old-age income security is a sharing social problem of all industrialized countries. 「Three tiers (pillars) of economic security」 has been used for solving this problem in Taiwan, Germany and U.S.A. The first tier is obligatory social insurance system established by the countries; the second tier is the composition of　“supplementary pension plans” created by companies or employers; the third tier is personal advance arrangements (include saving, purchase of insurance, investment, etc.). This dissertation concentrates on the legal protection of supplementary pension plans.　The supplementary pension plans in Taiwan is a double-track institution. While the voluntary part of it is rather insignificant, this institution is mainly in obligatory part. This obligatory supplementary pension plans is designed to be only one type － defined benefit plans, and there is only one designated funding agency － the Central Trust of China. In U.S.A. the supplementary pension plans used to be called “private pension plans”; in Germany the supplementary pension plans used to be called “company pensions (Betriebsrenten)”.　These two countries adopt voluntary institutions. The types and funding agencies of their supplementary pension plans are plural. In order to protect the rights of pension, the relevant laws were enacted in Taiwan, Germany， and U.S.A. Regulations about employee retirement benefits were included in the “Labor Standards Law” enacted in 1984 in Taiwan.　These regulations created minimum standards for the establishment, requirement of benefit, funding and funding agency, benefit formulas of retirement plans.　However these regulations　lacked protection of pension expectations and rights to pension against insolvency or bankruptcy of supporting employers.　In Germany the relevant regulations about supplementary pension plans are to be found in the “Act on Company Pensions” in force since December 1974.　This Act regulated very limitedly. It established minimum standards for company pensions, especially relating to protection of pension expectations, and pension benefit rights against insolvency of supporting employers. In the same year the “Employee Retirement Income Security Act” of 1974 (ERISA) was enacted in U.S.A..　This comprehensive employee benefit law not only stressed on protection of employee benefit rights (including protecting vesting right), but also created insurance for pension plan terminations. This dissertation mainly compares the legal institutions relating to　supplementary pension　plans in Taiwan, Germany and U.S.A. on the basis of the above statute laws relating to the supplementary pension plans of these three countries. Chapter 1 is the introduction of this research.　Chapter 2、3 and 4 discuss the legal institutions relating to supplementary pension　plans of these three countries. In each section of each chapter the same problems are discussed. Section 1 provides an overview of the historic background of supplementary pension plans and development of relevant laws, including how the supplementary pension plans have formed and expanded, how the law regulated, and problems that have been caused after enactment of the law relating to supplementary pension plans. Section 2 firstly discusses the core legal concept of supplementary pension in each country, and how it differentiates from other benefits of employers. Then this section probes into the legal bases of supplementary pension claims and the characteristics of supplementary pension.　Section 3 analyzes different types of supplementary pension plans, how they operate, and legal relations that have been produced. Section 4 explores pension funding.　Section 5 discusses the general legal protection of pension benefits, including participation, requirement of benefit, payment of benefit. The question of how supplementary pension integrates with social security benefit and counteracts the effect of inflation is also discussed.　Section 6 discusses how the relating laws of supplementary pension plans protect pension expectations, why the laws of Germany and U.S.A. protect pension expectations, when the pension benefit rights are nonforfeitable, how the nonforfeitable benefit is accrued, under which condition a nonforfeitable benefit can cash out, and whether the nonforfeitable benefit is portable when the employee changes the job?　The last section discusses the legal protection against insolvency of employers or termination of pension plans. After comparing the supplementary pension plans and its legal protections of Taiwan, Germany, and U.S.A.，chapter 5 examines advantages and disadvantages of the two recent drafts of supplementary pension plans reforms proposed by CLA (Council of Labor Affairs)in Taiwan. One is “Draft of the Old-age Supplementary Insurance of Employees” , and the other is “Draft of Employee Pension Act “ . The possibilities of having other ways for reforming supplementary pension plans institution of this country is also discussed in this chapter.　The last chapter puts research results of the preceding chapters into a conclusion.

主體性，是作為相對於客體性而言之主觀存在，且同時是作為在客體性中的客觀存在。如此一種普遍地可能存在於一切認識活動中的雙重存在狀態，正是所謂的「主體性的悖論」。而根據胡塞爾現象學式的沈思回溯考察，這樣一種可能的悖論形態之形成的原因，無非就出於主體多少偏執「客觀存在性先行存在」作為認識活動的理所當然性的前提之故。因為此種由主體對客體性存在與否具有著強烈興趣而產生出的偏執，總是讓主體在對「客觀存在性如何先行存在」此一問題少有深思的情形下，或是有所盲目或是有所扭曲地將自身多少誤解為關聯於客體而共同存在於客體性之中，且同時還多少將此種主體-客體的關聯當作兩者間具有某種平行類比意義的根據，甚而多少誤解主體是客體的類比存在性且可來自於對客體的存在性進行抽象而得之補充抽象的東西。如此一來，不僅主體固有的本質存在方式多少被化約遮蔽地客體化了，客體作為主觀的被給予東西的意義也多少被片面地簡化了，甚至還有那種由最深刻的不可理解的悖論危險性，所帶來之「客觀存在性如何能被主觀地認識」此一非比尋常的認識活動/知識（真理）之謎。而根據胡塞爾現象學式的沈思回溯考察，唯有通過徹底的「懸擱」來全面克制對客體性存在與否的強烈興趣，主體的目光才能完全解除指向客觀存在性的束縛，而以自由的反思活動來真正深入自身的主觀存在性之中，「無悖論地」揭示出自身「如何」以固有的本質存在方式主觀地認識到一切作為客觀存在性之主觀被給予的「事物本身」。