勞工保險金給付遲延之遲延利息請求權之爭議，在歷經大法官釋字第683號解釋及勞工保險條例修正後，已告一段落。而軍人撫卹制度之性質與勞工保險金之給付有其類似之處，且現行制度下，面臨類似問題，即受益人對於撫卹金之請領，因行政機關之遲誤，得否主張法定遲延利息之給付。此種漏未規範之狀態，應從撫卹金請求權之性質及法律關係加以探討，以判斷是否構成法律漏洞。本文並分析此種漏洞，認為在立法者制定撫卹金遲延給付，申請人有法定遲延利息請求權之規定前，毋庸另行適用國家賠償法之規定，應類推適用民法第233條第1項之規定，申請人得主張行使公法上請求權之法定遲延利息賠償，方能保障軍人之權利。

After J. Y. Interpretation No.683 addressed it’s constitutional with no additional interests for labor insurance payment when delay and the amendment of the Enforcement Rules of the Labor Insurance Act, the dispute has finally come to an end for a while. However , Indemnity Act for Military Personnel retains similar issue whether the applicants are able to stand for applying the civil code 233(a)“the interest for the default is able to be calculated at the statutory rate when administrative organizations distribute compensation with delay“ or not. This article is going to analyze the essence concept of the indemnity for Military Personnel and the legal relationship between administrative organizations and the applicants. The conclusion of the article is to apply civil code 233(a) rather than State compensation law. That is more efficient in prospect for the applicants of Military.