透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.222.212.138
  • 學位論文

金融消費者保護法之研究- 以訴訟外紛爭解決機制為中心

A Study of Financial Consumer Protection Act–Focus on Alternative Dispute Resolutions

指導教授 : 謝哲勝
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


我國於2011年6月3日由立法院三讀通過金融消費者保護法,同年6月29日由總統公布,12月30日施行。金融消費者保護法是專門制定作為保護金融消費者利益之用,依據公平、合理原則,有效處理金融消費糾紛,從而加強金融消費者對市場的信心,促進金融市場的健康發展。傳統上,這些爭議必須透過民事訴訟,經由很長的時間和高額的訴訟費用才能解決。 我國金融消費者保護法規定,金融消費者應就金融消費爭議事件應先向金融服務業提出申訴,金融服務業應於收受申訴之日起30日內為適當之處理,並將處理結果回覆提出申訴之金融消費者;金融消費者不接受處理結果者或金融服務業逾上述期限不為處理者,金融消費者得於收受處理結果或期限屆滿之日起60日內,向爭議處理機構申請評議;金融消費者向爭議處理機構提出申訴者,爭議處理機構之金融消費者服務部門應將該申訴移交金融服務業處理。當金融消費者所申請評議之案件符合法定申請評議之要件,金融爭議處理機構將試行調處;如調處無法成立,就會將案件送交評議委員會進行評議。案件進入評議委員會前,將先由3名以上之委員進行預審及出具審查意見報告,提交評議委員會審議,依公平合理原則作成評議決定,倘若金融消費者不接受評議決定,可向法院提起訴訟尋求救濟。 美國於2010年7月21日經歐巴馬總統簽署「多德-弗蘭克華爾街改革和消費者保護法案」,創設新的消費者金融保護局;英國則廢除金融服務局,採取雙元管制模式,將審慎管理機構與金融行為監理分開。本文試圖檢視我國金融消費者保護法與新增的爭議處理機構運作之情形,並分析其他國家有關金融消費者保護最新發展之方向,希冀能為我國金融保護法制帶來些許火花。

並列摘要


The Legislative Yuan in Taiwan promulgated the Financial Consumer Protection Act (“the Act”) after three readings on 3 June, 2011. The Act later was announced by the President on 29 June, 2011 and took its effect on 30 December, 2011. The Act is specifically brought to protect the interests of financial consumers, and to fairly, reasonably, and effectively deal with financial consumer disputes. Furthermore, the act aims to reinforce the confidence of financial consumers in the markets and ensure the sound development of the financial markets. Conventionally, the controversies between the financial consumers and the financial service providers must be resolved by the civil litigation system, which usually lasts long and consumes a great deal of resources, including legal fees,. According to the Act, when encountering a financial consumer dispute, a financial consumer must start with filing a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Institution (FOI). Then the FOI shall deal with the dispute appropriately within 30 days upon the date the complaint is registered, and shall inform the consumer its disposition. If the financial consumer does not accept the disposition or the financial service enterprise fails to approach the matter before the aforementioned time limit, the financial consumer may, within 60 days of either the day he receives notification of the disposition or the day the time limit expires, apply to the FOI to institute an ombudsman case. When a financial consumer files a complaint with the FOI, the financial consumer contact division of the FOI shall refer the complaint to the financial services enterprise for a further handling. After a financial consumer applies to institute an ombudsman case, the FOI may seek to institute mediation proceedings. If mediation proceedings succeed, the dispute is resolved. If any party related to the dispute does not agree to participate in mediation proceedings, or if mediation proceedings fail to achieve a resolution, the ombudsman committee need to hear the ombudsman case. The chairman of the ombudsman committee shall appoint at least three ombudsman committee members as pre-examiners to carry out an inspection and prepare an inspection opinion after the FOI submits an application to institute an ombudsman case. The ombudsman committee shall scrutinize the ombudsman case on a fair and reasonable base. If the financial consumer does not accept the decision, he/she may make an appeal to a court. On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama of the United States signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act into law. This Act promises to strengthen consumer financial protection by granting the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In the UK, the most significant development is that the FSA will be disbanded, simultaneously moving away to a ‘twin-peaks’ model, in which prudential regulation (set up as a subsidiary of the Bank of England) will be separated from conduct of business regulation (to be undertaken by a new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority). This thesis tries to introduce the Financial Consumer Protection Act in Taiwan, compare it with relevant acts taken effect at other countries, and futher make some contribution to the improvement of the legal system of Taiwan’s financial consumer protection.

參考文獻


17. 張冠群,金融商品銷售適合性原則之法制分析-兼評台灣金融服務法草案第三十一條及相關規定,高大法學論叢第5期,頁133-178,2009年9月。
7. 杜怡靜,日本金融商品交易法中關於金融業者行為規範-兼論對我國法之啟示,臺北大學法學論叢第64期,頁121-173,2007年12月。
1. 王志誠,金融行銷之控制及法制變革:金融消費者保護法之適用及解釋,萬國法律第179期,頁2-10,2011年10月。
35. 羅俊瑋、劉孝剛,論金融消費爭端非訟處理機制,萬國法律第179期,頁29-36,2011年10月。
5. 李智仁,金融商品之監理趨勢與消費者保護,萬國法律第179期,頁11-22,2011年10月。

被引用紀錄


李聯興(2015)。保險消費爭議處理機制之研究 - 評論金融消費者保護法〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2015.00367
戴詠潔(2015)。金融消費爭議之研究─以民國104年金融消費者保護法之修正為中心〔碩士論文,中原大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6840%2fcycu201500961
江國誌(2016)。金融消費者保護法之研究-以保險申訴實務為中心〔碩士論文,逢甲大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6341%2ffcu.M9912562
虞忠達(2016)。臺灣金融消費爭議處理之成本效益研究 -以說明義務為例〔碩士論文,逢甲大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6341%2ffcu.M0320966
賴秋瑩(2016)。我國壽險業保單申訴管理之研究〔碩士論文,逢甲大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6341%2ffcu.M0318712

延伸閱讀