透過您的圖書館登入
IP:34.230.68.214
  • 學位論文

從日本法論我國金融消費者保護法之規範 -以說明義務和適合度之規定為中心

A Review of Financial Consumer Protection Act in Taiwan from the view of Japanese Law: the Observation of Suitability and the duty of disclosure

指導教授 : 蔡昌憲

摘要


本文首先從連動債之概述出發,依時間軸說明台灣金融消費者保護法之規範與演進。從金融消保法立法前連動債之實務判決分析,可看出我國當時在連動債糾紛的適用法規和判斷標準上,並沒有一定的見解,而這也是促使金融消保法立法的理由;而從金融消保法立法後,我國實務上適用金融消保法之判決,似亦難以判斷金融消保法的立法是否確實能夠解決之前在連動債風暴上所遭遇的問題。由於我國之金融消保法有關適合度及說明義務的規定均參考自日本之規定,故有關我國和日本在這方面的比較便有其重要性,因而本文再由日本之金融商品販賣法和金融商品交易法之發展及內容,進一步說明目前日本對於適合性原則和說明義務之規範。在適合度之規定方面,我國之適合度採無過失責任,且極易該當損害賠償之要件,但日本則是未有此種規定,且有關損害賠償在實務上有質和量的要件;至於說明義務,我國在判斷說明義務上仍有過於形式化之可能,而不像日本以實質要件進行考量,並確實依不同的投資人而有不同說明義務的要求。未來我國在立法方面,是否應重新考量適合度的無過失責任是否適當;在解釋論上,是否應更加考量實質之要件,而非僅就契約之簽名等形式要件作判斷,此乃我國金融消保法之立法和解釋論上宜繼續思考及進一步觀察的課題。

並列摘要


This article first starts from the description of structured note in Taiwan, and describes the development of the Financial Consumer Protection Act (the “FCPA”) in Taiwan by chronological order. One of the reason of the FCPA legislating is that the judgments of structured note are inconsistency at the definition of causes of action and the standard of determination, which be showed by the analysis of the structured note related cases before the legislating of the FCPA. However, after the legislating of the FCPA, the judgments still can’t prove if the legislating of the FCPA really solves the problem brought by Lehman storm. Because the regulation of the suitability and the duty of disclosure of the FCPA consult the regulation of Japan, it's important to compare the regulation between Taiwan and Japan. For that reason, this thesis tries to describe the main acts of financial instrument regulation: Act on Sales, etc. of Financial Products (the ASFP) and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (the FIEA) in Japan. At the same time this thesis also illustrates the regulation of suitability and duty of disclosure of Japan. After understanding the regulation of Japan, the compare between Taiwan and Japan shows the difference. At the parts of the suitability, the FCPA imposes a liability without fault on financial services providers. However, Japan's the ASFP and the FIEA doesn't impose such strict liability, and the judgments in Japan use clear standard of quality and quantity when they determine the violation of the suitability. At the part of the duty of disclosure, compare with Japan, the judgments in Taiwan are still a little bit too formalized, and still not impose the financial services providers different liability when the providers face different consumers. Should we reconsider the liability without fault in the regulation of the suitability? Should the courts place more importance on substantial essentials when they judge the cases related to the selling of financial instrument? These issues remain to be considered and observed after the enactment of the FCPA.

參考文獻


熊全迪(2007),結構型債券法律規範之研究,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
楊麗萍(2011),金融消費者保護之新里程-金融消費者保護法簡介,存款保險資訊季刊,24卷4期,頁1-40。
蔡昌憲(2012),從內控制度及風險管理之國際規範趨勢論我國的公司治理法制:兼論董事監督義務之法律移植,台大法學論叢,41卷4期,頁1819-1896。
謝哲勝(2003),信託法總論,臺北:元照。
黃荃(2010),臺灣地區連動式債券投資行為概況實證分析與個案探討,會計學報,3卷1期,頁21-51。

被引用紀錄


鄭郁萱(2014)。金融服務業提供金融商品或服務的忠實義務〔碩士論文,國立中正大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0033-2110201613583654

延伸閱讀