以往，國家賠償事件甚少有對公務員行使求償權，惟現今因國會、審計機關及民意之要求下，行政機關對於是否行使求償權，已有較為嚴格之態度，故而於相關司法案例亦有相關判決得資參考。本文以台北縣兩個司法實務案例為分析對象，對於現行國家賠償事件行使求償權之構成要件予以分析，並輔以日本、英國及美國立法例為證，認為現行國家賠償行使求償權中之「重大過失」要件，往往因人而異，有造成恣意認定之虞，應以美國立法例僅對「故意」方得求償作為將來修法之核心方向。

In the state compensation cases, it used to be unusual to seek
compensation toward civil servants formerly. Nowadays, under the request
of the Congress, audit body and public opinions, administrative organization has a stricter manner on the right to seek compensation toward civil servants and hence we could refer to some judgments in the related judicial cases .This article takes two judicature practice cases in the court of Taipei County as the analysis objects and analyze the existing components of exercising the right to seek compensation in the cases of state compensation, as well as taking the legislation examples from Japan, Britain and United States as references. And, therefore, comes to the conclusion that the present “significant error” components of seeking the right of compensation in state compensation cases often are different from person to person, and thus it has created the problem of willful recognition. For this reason, we shall follow the American legislation cases and focus on the “intentional” cases to recompense as the core direction of the law amendment in the future.