最高行政院九十四年度裁字第二五六五號裁定是關於一件向勞工保險局申請積欠工資熱償的案件。由於申請案被勞保局核定不予墊償，這個最高行政法院裁定的核心問題雖然是「勞保局對於申請積欠墊償核定」之性質，但整個案件經過周折甚多，主要是積欠工資墊償制度值得爭議的地方很多：由於積欠工資墊償制度是一公私法混合的規範，發生該法律之爭議究竟應提起行政訴訟還是民事訴訟？再則積欠工資墊償制度，本身就是爭議不斷下所產生的規範，其規定涉及的行政院勞工委員會、中央勞工保險局、勞工及事業單位的雇主，各方之間的關係又錯綜複雜，制度中那一部分是公法關係？那一部分是私法關係？值得進一步討論。最後是本案原始爭論的實體問題，就是勞工若兼具監察人身分，到底能不能申請積欠工資墊償？ The decision of year 94 character decision No. 2565 from the highest administrative court refers to the case which applies to the labor insurance bureau. The Applier applies for arrear wage payment, but the labor insurance bureau refuses the application, because the applier is not only an employee but also a Supervisor in the company. The key question of the decision of the highest administrative court is although the nature of the decision by the labor insurance bureau, which refused to recompense the arrear wages. It concerns several disputed laws, because the system of The Arrear Wage Payment Fund is combined by public law and private law. Shall an employee seek public procedure or civil procedure, when an employee files a lawsuit about the application of arrear wages? Another dispute concerns the relations between the Arrear Wage Payment Fund and employers and employees. Do the different relations belong to the jurisdiction of public law or private law? The final question is the Qualification of Applier to the Arrear Wage Payment Fund. The present research attempts to resolve these three questions.