定型化契約法制於我國已發展二十餘年,在民法與消費者保護法併行下,形成雙軌規範模式,民國一百年六月制定金融消費者保護法第7條關於定型化契約之規範,至此似乎呈現三軌之規範模式。此外,現代銀行之經營業務範圍,已跳脫過往銀行與產業分離之思維,一般民眾在銀行從事各種金融交易行為,從傳統存款及放款服務到投資金融商品,形成一站購足之銀行百貨化現象。因此,本文以銀行定型化契約免責條款為核心,探討金融消費者保護法關於定型化契約規範之解釋與適用,以期給予應受保護之人最完善之保護。 銀行定型化契約在我國法院操作雙軌模式下,傳統型金融商品或服務契約(如存款契約、信用卡使用契約現金卡契約等)傾向認定有消保法之適用,投資型金融商品或服務契約(如特定金錢信託契約)則傾向認為投資人非屬消費者而僅能適用民法。民法關於定型化契約之規範又極為簡陋,投資人如何獲得定型化契約法之保護即為問題所在,金融消保法提供一個嶄新之契機,得以重新檢視銀行定型化契約法制。 首先,探討免責條款之基本理論,比較法上關於免責條款之規範方式,與定型化契約法之發展密切相關,本文以程序規範及實質規範之角度觀察各國規範特色。其次,在我國法下首應確認者係消保法與金融消保法之保護主體,重新檢討消費者與金融消費者之概念後,釐清彼此法規範之關係。再者,在程序規範方面,金融消保法未予規範,反而強調說明義務與適合性原則,用意為何?在實質規範方面,以合理風險分配原則充實顯失公平之具體內涵,作為條款效力之審查標準。同時,在傳統型金融商品或服務契約中,不同契約中相類似條款之審查標準應如何予以整合,亦為重要課題;在投資型金融服務或契約中,以連動債銷售及基金銷售為例,具體檢視各種免責條款之效力。
The Law of standard form contract has developed for 20 years. It is composed of Civil Code, Consumer Protection Law and Financial Consumer Protection Act. In addition, because of the diversity of the scope of banking business, people can deal with financial transaction such as bank deposit and investment. Therefore, the study analyses the explanation and application of Financial Consumer Protection Act regarding standard form contract, focusing on exemption clauses of banking standard form contract, in order to provide the people whom should be protected with complete protection. Especially on the operation of the practice, courts have different opinions between tranditional and invested banking standard form contrct. First, we discuss the regulation method on comparative law from the view of procedure and substance. Secondly, we review the protection subject of Consumer Protection Law and Financial Consumer Protection Act to recognize the relationship between both. Finally, on the side of procedural regulation, why Financial Consumer Protection Act do not provide procedural regulation but information duty and suitability ?On the side of substantive regulation, we use the principle of reseaonable allocation of risk to examine the effect of exemption clauses of banking standard form contract.