消費爭議的行政型與司法型替代性紛爭解決機制之研究

A Study of Alternative Consumer Dispute Resolution among Administrative and Judicial Aspects

陳怡君(YI-CHUN CHEN)

指導教授 ： 陳乃瑜

中原大學/法學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201700287

摘要

本文以處理消費爭議事件之替代性紛爭解決機制為核心，並援用相關學理與分類為論證基礎，就消費者保護之歷程與發展為分析背景，透過實證訪談與數據分析的方式，研究我國行政型與司法型替代性紛爭解決機制的管理規範、發展概況以及實務運作，從而歸納現行制度所發生的問題點，然後輔以美國替代性紛爭解決機制的發展經驗，比附援引，作為本文立論之架構，並提出建議。
首先，形式上的程序選擇權固然是憲法第16條賦予人民訴訟權之體現，但若能精緻化消費爭議之替代性紛爭解決機制的內涵，減少行政與司法機關對之不當資源分配。是此，本文建議將現行民事訴訟法第406條第1項第2款之列舉規定刪除，並加上除外條款，同理第420-1條第1項之修法亦是，俾供消費者與企業經營者在爭議發生之際，就該爭議合理、有效與迅速地解決，方為強化程序選擇權所給予人民的實質利益，同時美國的多階層之司法型替代性紛爭解決機制，可供我國修法時引進的可能性參考。
其次，目前消費者保護屬地方自治事項，在兼顧民意需求行政資源分配極大化，以及行政型替代性紛爭解決機制的有效運作，本文建議各地方縣（市）、直轄市政府主司消費者保護之權責機關應制定供內部運作之行政規則、具體化各種不受理的消費爭議之樣態，並對消費者濫行申訴制定相關的罰則，同時對符合要件卻不出席的企業經營者，亦訂立相關處罰規定，讓建置在消費者保護法之下的行政型替代性紛爭解決機制有效發揮其立法之初的功能。
最後，有鑑於美國推動替代性紛爭解決機制的實務運作上，司法行政致力推動而卓有成效的經驗，雖然憲法第80條賦予法官依據法律獨立審判，但為求司法資源有效運用與分配，本文建議司法院統一制定行政規則，以減少分案的方式鼓勵法官親自主持司法型替代性紛爭解決機制的運作，發揮法官之中立性與專業性，希冀畢其功於一役，讓消費爭議事件止訟息爭。

關鍵字

程序選擇權 ； 替代性紛爭解決機制 ； 消費爭議的解決 ； 法實證研究 ； 美國替代性紛爭解決機制 ； 法院行政管理

並列摘要

This dissertation took the alternative dispute resolution mechanism (ADR) of consumer dispute as the core, used the relevant theory and classification as the basis of the argument, and analyzed the history and development of consumer protection as the analysis background, through the empirical interview and data analysis, researching ADR among administrative and judicial aspects, to sum up the problems arising from the existing system, and then supplemented by the United States’ ADR development experience, than cited as the structure of this argument, and to make recommendations.
First of all, although the right to procedure options is the embodiment of Article 16 of the Constitution to give the people the right of instituting legal proceedings, refinement of ADR for consumer disputes could reduce the administrative and judicial organs of the allocation of improper resources. Thus, it is proposed that amendment of the existing Article 406 (a) (2) of Civil Procedure Law should be done, and the exclusion clause of the provision should be added at the same time, providing accessibility to settlement consumer disputes for enhancing the right to procedure options. Meanwhile, the practice of multi-level judicial ADR in the United States could take it as a reference for that amendment.
Secondly, due to the consumer protection belonging to local self-government, the dissertation suggested that competent authorities concerning consumer protection among county (city), municipal government, should formulate administrative rules for internal operation, specifying the various consumer disputes that are not admissible, relevant penalties for consumers' indiscriminate appeals, relevant provisions of the punishment for absence of traders required, all of which could be taken account of administrative resources in the maximization, and administrative ADR for the effective operation under the Consumer Protection Act.
Finally, given that practice of judicial ADR is committed to promoting and fruitful experience in the United States, the dissertation suggested that Judicial Yuan should strive to unify the administrative rules to encourage judges to personally preside over judicial ADR by means of cases distribution reduction, hoping to decide consumer disputes with neutrality and professionalism once and for all.

並列關鍵字

Right to Procedure Options ； Professionalization of Consumer Disputes Resolution ； Administrative ADR ； Judicial ADR ； U.S. ADR

參考文獻

24.顏玉明，採用爭議審議機制及早預防與解決工程履約爭議之研究，政大法學評論，第129期，頁4-5(2012)。

2.古嘉諄，介紹美國法院體系內之附屬仲裁機制－兼談引進國內之可能性，律師雜誌，第261期，頁3(2001)。

25.龔春生，以「替代性糾紛解決」(ADR)處理台商在大陸的商務糾紛，華人經濟研究，第9卷第2期，頁59(2011)。

10.冷函芸，我國訴訟外調解之機制與實踐，法令月刊，第64期第7卷，頁136-137(2013)。

2.Davis, Mary J., SECTION II: Summary Adjudication Methods in United States Civil Procedure, 46 The American Journal of Comparative Law 257(1998).