透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.211.228.24
  • 學位論文

美國反托拉斯法損害賠償運作機制對我國公平交易法之啟示

A Study on Private Litigations of U.S. Antitrust Law and the Inspiration for Taiwan

指導教授 : 黃銘傑

摘要


本文主要以美國反托拉斯法之規範及該國司法實務與學說見解為材料,探討美國反托拉斯法民事損害賠償機制運作情況,資以比較我國公平交易法(下稱公平法)民事損害賠償機制,並找出現行機制之缺點與提出改進建議。 首先,本文第二章介紹美國反托拉斯法之執行機制。本文研究發現,美國主流學說與實務均認為該國反托拉斯法之立法目的為「維護市場自由競爭秩序」,因此保護法益為「競爭」。反托拉斯法執行機制分為「公的執行」、「準公的執行」與「私的執行」三者。其中,「私的執行」(又稱私人訴訟)被賦予補充與監督國家權力行使、填補被害人損害及嚇阻違法行為發生等任務。美國實務上,「私的執行」與「公的執行」案件比一度高達20比1,且甚多經典反托拉法案例均在私人訴訟做成,由此可見私人訴訟在美國反托拉斯法執行機制中,扮演重要角色。 接著,本文第三章主要探討美國私人訴訟中,爭議最大也最具困難性的要件—「損害」。經比較分析,我國公平法未如美國克萊登法第4條a規定將保護客體限定在被害人「營業」或「財產」之損害,本文認為,我國公平法解釋上並無不同。此外,美國實務見解認為可請求之損害範圍限於因競爭減損所生之損害,即「反托拉斯損害」。相對於此,我國法條僅規定被害人「權益」之損害即可求償,範圍似乎無邊無際,恐不合立法旨趣,從而本文認為,應參考美國實務見解,將可請求之損害限定為「反托拉斯損害」。最後,本文透過解析美國實務判決,探討美國法院如何計算原告之損害額,並發現該國關於損害額之計算已發展出有別於一般侵權行為求償訴訟之計算方式,甚值我國參考。 以上是從實體法來看原告之權利,有別於此,本文第四章將從程序法之觀點,來看原告有關「損害」之舉證要求。本文發現,鑑於反托拉斯求償訴訟之「損害」本有「不確定」之本質,而且大多數之證據資料掌握在被告即行為者一端,因此若循向來由原告證明損害及損害額之舉證責任分配方式,將大大降低原告起訴意願,導致立法者欲透過私人訴訟達成「嚇阻」違法行為之目的無法達成,且有失公平。因此,美國實務在具體反托拉斯求償訴訟中,傾向於降低原告舉證責任,而立法者並透過建立團體訴訟機制,提升被害人起訴意願。以上有關程序法之見解與建制,毋寧才是私人訴訟制度成敗之關鍵,不得不加注意。 本文第五章將從「被告」的觀點,探討幾個被告責任免除或減輕之抗辯事由。這幾個抗辯事由多源於美國侵權行為法,但在反托拉斯法領域,此方面之討論,多從反托拉斯法之政策面加以思考,並非全盤照收傳統見解。幾個參考點如:原告是否因系爭抗辯事由之承認而降低起訴意願,影響嚇阻效果?被告之責任分擔是否公平?有無助於節約司法資源?法院實際上有無能力認定該抗辯事由事實是否存在?等。此等豐碩之學說討論與實務發展,當有助於刺激我國學者與實務家在公平法法學領域之思考。 本文第六章要回到我國法與實務發展之研究。首先,本文將介紹我國公平法損害賠償機制,此部分包括學界與實務對於法條內涵之詮釋。其次,本文蒐集整理我國歷審法院有關「限制競爭」訴訟之判決。研究結果發現,我國學界近年來已注意到公平法之特殊性,並參考美國、德國與日本法,紛紛提出建議,部分問題認為可從法規解釋解決,部分則須透過修法。至於實務方面,除案例甚少,代表我國因反競爭行為之被害人多不願依公平法起訴求償外,我國實務對於公平法損害賠償規定之詮釋,整體上仍不脫民法一般侵權行為之固有概念,顯見我國實務並未充分意識到公平法之機制設立目的已與民法有別之情,更別論對於請求權人範圍、損害認定、損害額計算等爭議表示精彩之見解,殊屬可惜。 最後,本文將於第七章對於上開第二章至第六章有關美國反托拉斯法損害賠償機制之運作,暨我國公平法規範、學說見解及實務發展之說明下,所發現各個應該加以改進之處,提出本文建議。

並列摘要


This thesis focuses on the mechanism of the indemnification of the U.S. Antitrust Law and Taiwanese Fair Trade Law. Based on the research of previous papers and court decisions about the U.S. Antitrust Law, this thesis further explores issues from a comparative law perspective in order to specify the meaning of injury and damage of article 30, paragraph 1 of the Taiwanese Fair Trade Law. In chapter 2, this thesis will introduce the purpose and enforcement of the U.S. Antitrust Law. The main propose of the U.S. Antitrust Law is to preserve free and unfettered competition of the market. It rests on the premise that unrestrained interaction of competitive forces will yield the best allocation of economic resources, lowest prices, highest quality, and greatest material progress. Besides, U.S. Antitrust Law is handled by: (1) public enforcement; (2)quasi public enforcement; and (3)private enforcement. Private enforcement plays the most important role in the enforcement of the law. In chapter 3, this thesis explains the meaning of injury and damage of Section 4 and 4A of the Clayton Act, which is a critical component of the U.S. Antitrust Law. It provides that anyone harmed by anything forbidden by the Antitrust Laws may sue in federal court regardless of the amount in controversy. Moreover, in order to calculate the amount of damages, there are many theories that can be used, such as Yardstick Theory, Before-and-After Theory, and Market-Share Theory. In chapter 4, this thesis explores the burden of proof of the plaintiff in an antitrust case. The Supreme Court of the United States recognized that an antitrust plaintiff has to establish the amount of damages with mathematical precision, but the standard for proving the amount of damages is less stringent than the required for proving the fact of damage. Furthermore, this thesis will introduce the expert evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence article 702. In chapter 5, this thesis explores the mitigation of damages. For example, in an antitrust case, if the plaintiff can show a failure of plaintiff to mitigate damages, the plaintiff may not recover damages for avoidable losses. In chapter 6, this thesis is based on all court decisions made on the Taiwanese Fair Trade Law, reviews the development of the mechanism of indemnification of the Taiwanese Fair Trade Law, and makes some suggestions." Finally, in chapter 7, in order to make the mechanism of indemnification of Taiwanese Fair Trade Law more flexible and functional, this thesis recommends that it should be amended.

參考文獻


13. 陳聰富(2013)。〈共同侵權之責任分擔:兼論最高法院98年度台上字第1790號民事判決〉,《法令月刊》,64卷1期,頁1-24。
11. 陳志民(2002)。〈「嚇阻」(deterrence)概念下之反托拉斯法私人訴訟—「最適損害賠償」理論之政策啟示〉,《人文及社會科學集科》,14卷1期,頁55-109。
3. 吳秀明(2005)。〈公平交易法的概括條款與民事責任—參與「公平交易法註釋研究系列」之成果說明〉,《律師雜誌》,315期,頁59-70。
1. Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick (2012). Evidence. New York: Thomson Reuters Publishing Co.
11. Steven L. Emanuel (2013). Evidence. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law and Business

延伸閱讀