日本金融消費者保護法中說明義務與適合性原則之建構

The structure of disclosure duty and the suitability principal in Japan Financial Consumer Protection Regulation

林宜賢(Yi-Hsien Lin)

指導教授 ： 蔡英欣

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.10379

摘要

為保護投資大眾於金融商品交易之中能獲得相當之保障，我國於民國100 年12 月30 日通過金融消費者保護法之法律，除針對金融業者於金融交易上之「說明義務」及「適合性原則」明文規範構成要件，且亦認定違反之際即產生損害賠償責任。惟我國早期實務上，對於金融商品交易中因金融業者之瑕疵行為造成投資者交易上之損失，是否應擔負相當的損害賠償責任傾向保守認定，似與投資者保護之主旨相互背離，而往後我國實務在金融消費者保護法之「說明義務」及「適合性原則」認定違反之操作上，能否善為考量達成該法規所預期之效果，非無疑義。觀與我國同樣肯認金融業者於金融交易中之「說明義務」、「適合性原則」責任的日本，於其金融商品交易法訴訟之中，如何評價「說明義務」、「適合性原則」之構成要件，甚至各項衍伸義務，如「建言義務」、「顧客情報蒐集義務」等之義務範圍及是否致生損害賠償責任，又投資者本身有過失之際，是否將之論以與有過失之責，且與有過失應以何為限度，因歷經多年實務及學說見解累積，逐漸形成判斷之基準，尚可供我國評斷時參酌。故本文擬就日本對於「說明義務」及「適合性原則」規範和學說、實務見解加以分析比較，以期能透過借鏡日本之現行制度，使我國建構違反「說明義務」及「適合性原則」之損害責任能更臻完整，另亦提出日本法制存在之爭議問題，其我國能以之為鑒，改善現今制度更趨近於「保障金融消費者權益」之宗旨。

關鍵字

金融商品 ； 說明義務 ； 適合性原則 ； 建言義務 ； 顧客情報蒐集義務 ； 過失相抵

並列摘要

For protecting the investors in a transaction of financial instruments, the ”Financial Consumer Protection Law” was enacted at 30th Dec 2011. The constituent elements of “disclosure duty” and “suitability principal” which financial institution is required in financial transaction is expressly described in this law, and the liability for damages of failing to perform “disclosure duty” and of breach of “suitability principal” is also included in this law.
In early practice of law in our country, it’s hard to imagine that financial institutions are liable for their defective conduct in a financial transaction which cause damages to investors, but this conception is not comply with the purpose for protecting investors. After the enactment of the ”Financial Consumer Protection Law”, it’s still doubtful that the implement of the law, especially about the liability for damages of failing to perform “disclosure duty” and of breach of “suitability principal”, will achieve the respected effect of the statute in practice of law in our country.
Observing the law of Japan, which is adopting the “disclosure duty” and “suitability principal” that financial institution is required, it has developed, from accumulation of practice and theory of law for a long time, criteria about the constituent elements of “disclosure duty” and “suitability principal”, and criteria about other extended duties such as “duty to advice” or “duty of consumer intelligence gathering”, and even criteria about the comparative negligence of investors. All about that may be a good reference for Taiwan.
In order to construct the complete system about liability for damages of failing to perform “disclosure duty” and of breach of “suitability principal”, this article focused on the comparison with the regulations, theory and the conception in practicing law about “disclosure duty” and “suitability principal” in Japan. And this article also pointed out the controversial issues in Japan, for improving the law in our country to be accordant with the purpose of protecting financial consumers.

並列關鍵字

financial instruments ； disclosure duty ； suitability principal ； duty to advice ； duty of consumer intelligence gathering ； comparative negligence

參考文獻

9. 張冠群(2009)，〈金融商品銷售適合性原則之法制分析--兼論臺灣金融服務法草案第三十一條及相關規定〉，《高大法學論叢》，5期。

1. 王志誠(2011)，〈金融行銷之控制及法制變革：金融消費者保護法之適用及解釋〉，《萬國法律》，179期。

11. 謝哲勝(2013)，〈現行商品責任規範的檢討〉，《台北大學法學論叢》，87 期。

4. 杜怡靜(2005)，〈論對金融業者行銷行為之法律規範—以日本法金融商品販賣法中關於「說明義務」及「適合性原則」為參考素材〉，《臺北大學法學論叢》，57期。

中文專書