行政機關對定型化契約內容形成空間及管制之探討 －以消費者保護法授權公告之應記載或不得記載事項為中心

Research on the Scope for Administrative Authorities to Shape and Regulate Standard Contracts－Focus on the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of the Consumer Protection Law

張嘉麟(Chia-Lin Chang)

指導教授 ： 陳顯武

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.00414

摘要

本論文主要就現行中央主管機關依據消費者保護法第17條第1項規定公告定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項之相關問題進行分析與檢討，提出中央主管機關對定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項規範內容之裁量界限，以劃定其對定型化契約內容之形成空間。此外，定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項之規範效力及行政機關對企業經營者違反定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項之管制手段，亦屬本論文之研究範圍。研究方法方面，本論文係採取文獻歸納之研究方法，蒐集與本論文研究範圍相關之教科書、專書、期刊雜誌相關文章、研究報告、學位論文、政府文獻、中央主管機關已公告之定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項、法院實務判決等資料，並參酌行政機關實際執法之相關案例，全面進行分析檢討，並提出具體可行之建議。本論文共分為六章：
第一章緒論。主要說明研究動機與研究目的，提出研究問題，並對相關文獻進行回顧。
第二章消費者保護法對定型化契約之規制。主要說明定型化契約衍生之問題及立法規範之必要性。行政機關基於行政專業之考量、對企業經營者之實質影響力、事前預防消費爭議之發生、彌補司法救濟之不足及促進定型化契約之公平化，對定型化契約有進行管制之必要性。行政機關對定型化契約內容形成之規範模式，主要為訂定發布定型化契約範本及公告定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項。定型化契約範本性質上為行政指導，不具強制拘束力。而定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項性質上為法規命令，具強制性規範效力。
第三章中央主管機關對定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項之規範界限。主要說明消費者保護法第17條第1項至第3項關於定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項之授權依據、目的、內容及範圍，並提出立法者授權中央主管機關對定型化契約內容形成之裁量界限，再就現行應記載或不得記載事項之規範內容進行檢討。
第四章定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項之審議程序及規範效力。先就中央主管機關及行政院消費者保護處之審議程序進行說明，並指出現行審議程序之缺失，再就消費者保護法第17條第1項進行檢討。此外，本章亦就定型化契約條款及個別磋商條款符合或違反應記載或不得記載事項之效力予以探討，並對消費者保護法第17條第5項規定應記載事項強制構成定型化契約內容提出質疑。
第五章行政機關對企業經營者違反定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項之管制手段。採取之管制手段分為依消費者保護法第17條第6項派員查核、依個別專業法律規定對企業經營者處以罰鍰、依消費者保護法第58條對企業經營者處以罰鍰、依地方消費者保護自治條例規定對企業經營者處以罰鍰、消費者保護官依消費者保護法第53條第1項提起不作為訴訟、依新修正消費者保護法第56條之1令企業經營者限期改正如屆期未改正再處以罰鍰。
第六章結論。本論文之主要發現有以下三點：一、法院應更積極介入定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項之效力審查。二、行政機關對定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項之裁量界限。三、消費者保護法第56條之1規定適用之限制。最後本論文提出以下三點修法建議：一、建議消費者保護法第17條第4項增列個別磋商條款。二、建議刪除消費者保護法第17條第5項規定。三、建議修法限縮消費者保護法第56條之1規定之適用範圍。

關鍵字

中央主管機關 ； 定型化契約 ； 定型化契約條款 ； 個別磋商條款 ； 定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項 ； 行政管制 ； 裁量界限

並列摘要

This paper analyzes and examines the relevant issues of the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of standard contracts set forth by public notice conducted by the existing competent authorities at the central government level in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1, Article 17, Consumer Protection Law, and proposes the discretionary limits to the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of standard contracts specified by the competent authorities at the central government level to delineate its spaces formed by standard contracts. In addition, normative force of the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of standard contracts and regulatory measures against business operators in violation of the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of standard contracts are also covered in this study. With respect to research methods, this paper adopts literature induction, collecting textbooks, monographs, relevant articles in journals, research reports, dissertations, government documents, the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of standard contracts publicly posted by the competent authorities at the central government level, court decisions and other information related to the scope of this study, taking into account of the relevant cases enforced by administrative authorities, making a comprehensive analysis and review, and proposing concrete and feasible recommendations. This paper is divided into six chapters:
Chapter 1: Exordium. This chapter mainly explains the motivation and purpose of this study, presents research issues, and reviews the relevant literature.
Chapter 2: Regulations Made under Consumer Protection Law on Standard Contracts. This chapter mainly explains issues derived from standard contracts and necessity of legislative norms. Due to the consideration with the professionalism of the administration, substantial influence on business operators, prior restraint of consumer disputes from occurring, filling up a deficiency in judicial remedies and facilitating fairness in standard contracts, the administrative authorities need to make regulations on standard contracts. Formation of the provisions of standard contracts of which the model specified by the administrative authorities is mainly for the stipulation of publishing a template for standard contracts and for public notice of the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of standard contracts. The template for standard contracts has the nature of an administrative guidance which is not subjected to compulsory execution effect, whereas the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of standard contracts have the nature of statutory rules and orders which are subjected to compulsory effects.
Chapter 3: Limits in the Specification of the Mandatory or Prohibitory Provisions of Standard Contracts Stipulated by the Competent Authorities at the Central Government Level. This chapter mainly accounts for authorization basis, purpose, content and scope with respect to the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of standard contracts prescribed in Paragraph 1 to 3, Article 17, Consumer Protection Law, and presents the discretionary limits of provisions formation of standard contracts specified by the competent authorities at the central government level under the lawmakers’ authorization, and further reviews the existing normative content of the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of standard contracts.
Chapter 4: Approval Procedure and Normative Force of the Mandatory or Prohibitory Provisions of Standard Contracts. This chapter starts by accounting for the approval procedure conducted by the competent authorities at the central government level and Consumer Protection Committee of the Executive Yuan, indicating the deficiency in the existing approval procedure, further reviewing Paragraph 1, Article 17, Consumer Protection Law. In addition, this chapter also explores the validity of the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of standard contracts with which the articles for standard contracts and the bargaining terms are in accord or violate, and queries the mandatory provisions compulsorily constituting standard contracts set forth in Paragraph 5, Article 17, Consumer Protection Law.
Chapter 5: Administrative Authorities’Regulatory Means against Business Operators in Violation of the Mandatory or Prohibitory Provisions of Standard Contracts. The means for regulating include dispatching officials to carry out an audit in accordance with Paragraph 6, Article 17 of Consumer Protection Law, to fine the business operators based on the laws and regulations of respective specialties, to give the business operators an administrative fine according to Article 58 of Consumer Protection Law, fining the business operators in accordance with local consumer protection autonomy regulations, an action for prohibitory injunction initiated by an ombudsman according to Paragraph 1, Article 53 of Consumer Protection Law, demanding the business operators to be punished by an administrative fine when failing to take corrective actions within the time limit in accordance with Article 56-1 of the newly amended Consumer Protection Law.
Chapter 6: Conclusion. The main findings of this paper are the following three points: 1. The court should be more actively involved in the review of validity of the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of standard contracts. 2. The discretionary limits of the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of standard contracts specified by the administrative authorities. 3. Application limits of the provisions of Article 56-1, Consumer Protection Law. Conclusively, this paper makes the following three recommendations for law revisions: 1. Suggest bargaining terms set forth additionally in Paragraph 4, Article 17, Consumer Protection Law. 2. Deleting Paragraph 5 in Article 17 of Consumer Protection Law. 3. Amending and reducing the scope of application to the provisions of Article 56-1, Consumer Protection Law.

並列關鍵字

the competent authorities at the central government level ； standard contracts ； articles for standard contracts ； bargaining terms ； the mandatory or prohibitory provisions of standard contracts ； administrative regulation ； discretionary limits

參考文獻

黃俊杰著，行政程序法，元照出版，2010年3月2版2刷。

蔡宗珍，營業自由之保障及其限制－最高行政法院2005年11月22日庭長法官聯席會議決議評釋，台大法學論叢第35卷第3期，2006年5月，頁277-321。

陳聰富，契約自由之限制：國家政策或契約正義？，台大法學論叢第32卷第1期，2003年1月，頁119-164。

黃立，網路買賣不公平條款之行政監督－對最高行政法院一○一年度判字第二七二號判決的評論，月旦裁判時報第18期，2012年12月，頁5-12。

李震山，論訂定法規命令之決定裁量－行政法院88年度判字第4343號判決評釋，台灣本土法學雜誌第15期，2000年10月，頁71-82。