消保法消費訴訟之研究

民事訴訟法於制定之初，係以一對一之當事人為預設之程序主體，然隨著時代演進及科技不斷地推陳出新，現代型態之糾紛有受害人多數之特性，使得當事人多數之紛爭越趨頻繁。訴訟型態之改變，檢視了我國立法之不足，民事訴訟法及消費者保護法進而針對團體訴訟部分修正，惟若民事訴訟法之相關規定即可因應此類紛爭，則消費者保護法團體訴訟之規定，是否仍有存在之必要。故本文將先於第二章就民事訴訟法中，關於多數當事人之訴訟型態，如選定當事人、共同訴訟等為介紹。第三章係介紹消費者保護法之消費訴訟，從消費者保護法之立法談起，至消費訴訟及消費者保護法關於消費訴訟之設計等。第四章之部分，則是針對消費者保護法之團體訴訟內涵及證券投資人及期貨交易人保護法中團體訴訟之相關規定做介紹，並與消費者保護法之團體訴訟制度比較。最後再就民事訴訟法第44條之1至第44條之3等規定與消費者保護法第50、54、53條之規定予以區別。第五章則是對團體訴訟於實務上所發生之著名案例解說，即因臺灣九二一大地震而發生之「博士的家」社區倒塌案及攸關食品安全之塑化劑案，從實務上對於團體訴訟之操作來觀看其中之問題點。最後則提出自己之見解，期望藉由本文之介紹與探討，能讓更多人重視消費者之權益，也希望未來消費團體訴訟之制度能更臻完善。

關鍵字

多數當事人；選定當事人；共同訴訟；消費訴訟；團體訴訟

並列摘要

At the beginning of the Code of Civil Procedure was first legislated, the procedural subjects were presupposed by one-on-one parties. However, as time goes on and technology continues to evolve, modern types of disputes with the trait of multiple victims, so disputes that involve multiple parties’ are becoming more frequent. Changes in litigation patterns reflect deficiencies in Taiwan’s legislation, and therefore class actions’ amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure and the Consumer Protection Law had been made. The question now is, if the relevant regulations of the Code of Civil Procedure can cope with such disputes, whether there is still a requirement for the existence of regulations about class actions in Consumer Protection Law. In Chapter II, the multiple-party litigation form in the Code of Civil Procedure, such as appointing the representative party and joinder of parties, is introduced. Chapter III introduces consumer litigation in the Consumer Protection Law, beginning with legislation of the Consumer Protection Law, to consumer litigation and designs of consumer litigation in the Consumer Protection Law. Chapter IV, to focus on the content of class actions in the Consumer Protection Law and regulations that are related to class actions in the Securities Investor and Futures Trader Protection Act, then to compare with each other. Eventually, to distinguish between Articles 44-1 to 44-3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Articles 50, 54, and 53 of the Consumer Protection Law. Chapter V, I comment on famous cases about class actions in practice, namely the collapse of the “doctor’s home” community because the huge 921 earthquake in Taiwan and the plasticizers case about the security of food products, then see problems by class actions are operated practically. Finally, I propose my own opinion and hope to use this paper to introduce and explore this area so that more people can value consumers’ rights. I also hope that the consumer class actions system can be made more comprehensive in the future.