透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.235.186.149
  • 學位論文

金融商品銷售行為中關於說明義務與適合性原則規範之研究─我國與日本法制之比較

Regulations of financial products selling methods about the duty of disclosure and the principle of suitability -the comparison legal study on Taiwan and Japan

指導教授 : 陳乃瑜

摘要


當各國開始鬆綁國內金融管制,並鼓勵金融產業之發展與創新時,大量新興的金融商品與服務充斥於整個金融市場,不但為金融消費者提供更多樣化之選擇,且金融消費者與金融服務業者因金融商品或服務所生之金融糾紛劇烈極增。意謂著縱容金融服務業者的市場濫用行為之結果下,缺乏相關立法規範保護金融消費者,使其權益直接受到侵害,進而可能引發全融危機。其後,各國展開有關保護金融消費者權益之立法活動及相關金融體制之改革,考量金融商品與金融消費者之特殊性,認為應建立起一套系統性之措施內容,並落實到具體的立法規範當中。 日本於2000年及2006年分別制定了金融商品販賣法與金融商品交易法,其中規範金融服務業者推介或銷售金融商品時,應遵行一定之法定義務與責任,賦予金融消費者法定權利,衡平雙方當事人交易地位不對等之狀況。因此,本文從比較法學之觀點,以日本於立法中明確規定金融服務業者之說明義務與適合性原則及相對應之民事賠償責任為研究基礎,檢討我國從傳統法規範,至金融服務業法草案提出,進而金融消費者保護法通過,對於金融服務業者銷售金融商品行為之規範,在其說明義務與適合性原則內容上是否有須修正或補充之處,提出些許淺見之建議,作為今後我國立法改進之參考。 然不論從我國或日本金融法制內容,探討該如何強化金融服務業者銷售金融商品行為之規範密度,大多關注於說明義務與適合性原則之準則運用,惟從整個金融商品銷售過程中,資訊提供之多寡,亦影響金融消費者正確交易判斷與否。因此,本文站在保護金融消費者權益之立場,認為規範金融商品銷售行為之規範,應圍繞於說明義務、適合性原則與資訊提供義務三者間進行權衡,提出重新建構我國金融服務業者銷售金融商品行為之適切規範。

並列摘要


When the country began to deregulate the domestic financial and encourage the development of the financial industry and innovation, the large number of new financial products and services were flooded with the entire financial market, , not only to provide a variety of financial consumer choice, but also financial consumer and financial service providers because financial products or services, financial disputes born of the most intense growth, means that those who condone the financial services industry the results of market abuse, the lack of relevant legislative norms to protect financial consumers, their interests are directly affected by abuse, which may cause the whole financial crisis . Since then, the country embarked on the legislation to protect the financial interests of consumers and the related activities of the financial system reform, financial products and financial considerations of the special nature of the consumer, that the measures should establish a systematic content, and implementation of specific legislation regulate them. In 2000 and 2006 years, Japan respectively trafficking law enacted Financial products selling act and Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, which regulate the financial services industry who promote or sell financial products, should comply with certain statutory obligations and responsibilities, to give legal rights of financial consumers, both equity unequal status of the parties to the transaction status. Therefore, this article from the viewpoint of comparative law, to Japan in the legislation clearly stipulates the Duty to disclose and Principle of suitability, for the description and the corresponding principle of civil liability for research-based review of Taiwan from the traditional norms, to the draft Financial Services Act , then the financial consumer protection act was passed, the financial services industry who acts regulate the sale of financial products, in its description of duties and for the content of the principle of whether there is need to amend or supplement the Department, made a little humble opinion of the recommendations for future legislation to improve our reference. Whether from Taiwan or Japan, the contents of the financial and legal system, to explore how to strengthen the financial services industry who sell financial products behavior norms density, mostly focused on the description of duties and principles of the guidelines for the use of financial products but from the entire sales process, the information provided size, also affect the financial transactions to determine whether or not consumers correctly. Therefore, this stand to protect the interests of consumers of financial position, financial products sales practices that regulate the norms, should focus on the description of duties, and information provided for the principle of the obligation to balance among the three proposed construction of Taiwan's financial service providers to re-sell financial behavior of the appropriate product specification.

參考文獻


1. 臺灣最高法院96年度台上字第1891號民事判決。
3. 臺灣最高法院91年度台上字第1001號民事判決。
4. 臺灣最高法院91年度台上字第1660號民事判決。
5. 臺灣最高法院92年度台上字第29號民事判決。
6. 臺灣高等法院100年度金上字第11號民事判決。

被引用紀錄


田哲林(2017)。金融消費者保護法爭議處理機制探討-以我國與日本的實務見解及評議案件為中心〔碩士論文,中原大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6840%2fcycu201700326
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
李冠衡(2015)。論金融服務業之說明義務─以投資型保險商品為探討中心〔碩士論文,國立中正大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0033-2110201614022159

延伸閱讀