摘要
隨著經濟成長與科技發達，消費市場亦蓬勃發展，消費者購物選擇日趨多元化之同時，亦伴隨諸多消費爭議之產生。消保法第十條有關企業經營者「召回義務」之規範，實為具有劃時代意義之進步立法，蓋傳統上，對於消費者法益保障之重點，大多置於事後損害之彌補，惟事後之填補雖確實可補償消費者之損失，然而，倘若能於事前即建立出一套完善之機制，將有危害消費者疑慮之商品或服務，排除於銷售體系之外，確保消費者不受侵害，豈非更能貫徹保障消費者之美意？ 我國消費者保護法亦係體認到「事前預防」之重要性，故於民國八十三年制定本法時，即納入召回制度之規範，試圖透過建立完備之「事前預防機制」並輔以損害發生後之「事後填補機制」，賦與消費者雙重保障，確保消費市場之安全性並維護消費秩序。 然而，我國雖自消費者保護法於民國八十三年制定時起，即引進召回義務之概念，於社會上亦常見主管機關以行政命令之方式，要求企業經營者採取下架、回收等手段，將問題商品排除於消費市場外，惟因消保法第十條之規定過於簡陋，且於尚未發生實害前，亦鮮少有消費者以消保法第十條作為請求權基礎，向法院起訴，造成實務相關案件數趨近於零。再者，學說上對召回義務之討論亦寥寥可數，從而，雖然有關企業經營者「召回義務」之規範立意甚佳，於我國實際操作上仍存有許多疑義有待解決。 本文之架構主要可以分成四大部分：首先，於第二章先介紹「召回制度」之意義、基礎理論與性質等相關背景知識，並就比較法上召回制度之行使狀況做概略性之介紹，以便有助於了解其後章節所欲討論之相關爭議。再者，於第三章之部分，則係針對「召回主體」做分析討論，於本章中將分別討論「義務主體」與「保護主體」之議題。 其次，於第四章中，將針對消保法第十條所規範之「召回要件」做深入分析探討。除了針對該條第一項所謂「有事實足認其提供之商品或服務有危害消費者安全與健康之虞」之危險性要件，其定義、衡量標準與判斷時點等做討論外，針對同條第二項有關警告後召回之相關爭議，亦加以分析。此外，本章最後將對於消保法第十條第一項與第二項之間，頗為矛盾之適用關係做釐清。 最後，於第五章之部分，將觀察現行法上企業經營者違反召回義務時，救濟途徑是否充足之問題，並試圖於現行法之外，替消費者尋得更有力之救濟途徑，以更加落實消費者保護法保障消費者之意旨。 本文藉由對於消保法第十條企業經營者召回義務之深入探討，從主體、要件乃至於救濟途徑中，條文規範不清之爭議，盡可能蒐集相關資料，並嘗試找出可能之解釋方式，希冀能有助於召回制度在實務之適用上更加明確，勾勒出召回制度於我國法適用上之藍圖。
並列摘要
With the nation’s economy growing rapidly, the consumption market is also booming. While the choices of the consumer diversifies, it brings about many disputes. The “Product recall” is of epoch-making significance in the regulation protecting the customer. In the past, the protection of the consumer emphasizes on the compensation for damages.Although the loss caused by detective products can be satisfied, it cannot prevent the products with potentially danger from entering into the market. In order to protect consumer’s rights and benefits, the article of “Product recall” has been enacted as the Consumer Protection Act legislated in 1994. According to the section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, if there are reasonable doubts that the products may cause danger to human health or safety, entrepreneurs of the products have a duty to recall them. “Product Recall” means the process of recalling dangerous products or a range of products sold into the market as a result of a contravention of the Consumer Protection Act§10 or as a result of an order received from the authorities in Consumer Protection Act§36 to recall it. The duty to recall is to weed out the defects of the product or avoid damages to publicity. This duty is costly to entrepreneurs of the product because they often entail replacing the recalled product or paying for damage caused by use, although possibly less costly than consequential costs caused by damage to brand name and reduced trust in the manufacturer. However, the recalling system in Taiwan is incomplete, and the court cases regarding the duty to recall are also rare. Therefore, the core of my master thesis is to study the relevant controversies of the duty to recall. It is divided into four parts. Firstly, I will make an introduction about the basic theory, definition and character of the recalling system in chapter 2, in order to have a preliminary understanding of product recall. Secondly, in chapter 3, I will analyze the obligee and the obligor of duty to recall. Thirdly, I will scrutinize the legal requirements of product recall, and try to define what extent of danger should be recalled in chapter 4. Finally, because of the lacking of the legal redress of the recalling system in Taiwan, I will introduce the means of legal redress and propose some amendments which is advantageous to consumers in chapter 5. By probing into the relevant controversies of product recall thoroughly, I hope that this thesis will help to specify the applications of the recalling system, and this system will be more effective in protecting consumers from the damages of failing to recall.