消保法第51條懲罰性賠償金爭議問題研究

我國於民國83年公布施行之消費者保護法第51條乃我國首次於法條中揭示｢懲罰性賠償金｣字眼。該條引進英美法之懲罰性賠償金制度，對於具有主觀上可歸責性之企業經營者，按其故意、重大過失或過失等不同之歸責程度，賦予消費者可向企業經營者按其不同歸責性所得請求之損害額倍數金額計算之懲罰性賠償金。然而，英美法體系之懲罰性賠償金制度與我國民事法傳統所採之損害填補制度，具有論理上之衝突，究應如何正確適用，久為實務及學者所熱烈討論。本條在我國適用已近30年，然在請求權主體、責任主體、適用範圍、成立要件、乃至於法律適用即｢損害額｣之計算基準等，仍存有許多解釋上之爭議。實務上對於本條懲罰性賠償金規定之適用，有探求英美法懲罰性賠償制度精神者、亦有融入我國現有體制而適用者，並無定論，顯見此議題仍深具研究之價值。本論文以文獻探討與個案分析之方式，於第二章以美國法為借鏡，介紹懲罰性賠償金制度之內涵，作為後續探討懲罰性賠償制度在我國適用之基礎；再於第三章以分析學者見解與實務個案之方式，探討本條構成要件關於｢請求權主體｣、｢責任主體｣、｢適用範圍｣、｢成立要件｣在我國施行與適用上之相關爭議問題；並於第四章針對最高法院108年台上大字第2680號裁定所論及｢損害額｣計算基準之議題，爭理學者與實務間之不同意見，並提出本文見解，末於第五章提出本條之修法建議，以作為後續法制適用之參考。

關鍵字

懲罰性賠償金；消費者保護法第51條；損害額；請求權主體；責任主體

並列摘要

In 1994, Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, was enacted, marking the first appearance of the term "punitive damages" in Taiwanese legislation. This article introduced the punitive damages system from English and American law. It allows consumers to claim punitive damages against business operators who exhibit the subjective fault, intention, gross negligence, or negligence, based on different degrees of culpability, as a multiple of the actual damages. However, the punitive damages system in the English and American legal systems conflicts with the traditional compensatory damages system in Taiwanese civil law. The correct application of this system has been a topic of heated discussion among practitioners and scholars. Although Article 51 has been in effect in Taiwan for nearly 30 years, there are still many disputes regarding the interpretation of the rights holders, liable parties, scope of application, elements of the establishment, and even the calculation criteria for "actual damages." In practice, there is no consensus on whether to adopt the spirit of the punitive damages system from English and American law or integrate it into the existing Taiwanese legal framework. Clearly, this issue still holds significant research value. This thesis utilizes a literature review and case analysis. In Chapter 2, the punitive damages system is introduced based on US law as a reference, laying the foundation for discussing its application in Taiwan. In Chapter 3, through analyzing scholarly opinions and practical cases, the controversies related to the constituent elements of Article 51, such as the "rights holders," "liable parties," "scope of application," and "elements of the establishment," are explored. Chapter 4 focuses on the issue of the calculation criteria for " the extent of damages " discussed in the Supreme Court's ruling in Case No. 2680 of 2019, presenting different opinions from scholars and practitioners, and providing the author's perspective. Finally, in Chapter 5, recommendations for amending Article 51 are proposed as a reference for future legal applications.