| 摘要註: |
在金融業快速發展的今天，金融市場及金融商品服務日趨專業複雜，金融消費者與金融服務業在財力、資訊及專業知識各方面皆有不對等的情形，金融消費發生糾紛的頻率越來越高，為平衡企業經營者與消費大眾之間的對等關係，行政院金融監督管理委員會自2004年即開始研議「金融服務法」，並於2008年提出「金融服務業法」草案，惟該草案未能通過，經過金管會之持續研究及與各界溝通，再提出「金融消費者保護法」草案，參考國外立法例及國內相關規範，希望強化金融消費者之保護措施及建立金融消費爭議處理機制，金融消保法經立法院三讀通過後於2011年12月30日正式實施。我國於金融消費者保護法通過施行前，對於金融消費爭議之各種處理機制管道多元，但因未統整導致消費者無所適從，造成社會資源浪費、處理程序過長及品質無法監管等問題。2008年全球金融風暴，引發國內多數投資人損失，並於尋求救濟時產生許多爭議，使問題一一浮上檯面。故本論文將以金融消費者保護法制下爭議處理機制為主題，作一研究與探討。第一章緒論，旨在說明本論文的研究動機與目的、研究方法和架構。第二章2008年金融風暴凸顯金融消費爭議處理之問題—以英、美兩國為例，本章介紹金融風暴發生後，美國及英國因缺乏對於金融消費爭議處理機制所衍生的問題，及金融風暴後，各國因應對金融消費者保護意識之加強，進行了諸多金融改革政策，除建立獨立且統合性之監理機制，政府亦更積極介入金融交易市場，提高對金融業者之契約義務要求，並針對數量越趨龐大的金融消費爭議，設立專門的申訴及評議機構。第三章則對我國金融消費者保護法施行前爭議處理機制做一完整之探討，並指出透過傳統民事訴訟程序，有程序過於冗長及耗費之成本過高之問題，且該等程序未必具有專業能力足以處理金融消費爭議；而若透過專責處理金融消費爭議之機構，卻又因管道過多，有重疊並浪費資源之情況，對於消費者而言，亦未必均能瞭解各個管道之差異，而選擇對其有利之方式，相關缺失於本章敘明。第四章金融消費者保護法爭議處理機制，除了說明我國金融消費者保護法之立法背景及目的外，更對適用範圍的界定、保護的對象及內容及消費爭議的處理程序做一詳細的分析與探討。第五章及第六章研究英美兩國之金融消費爭議處理機制，進行不同面向之比較分析，藉此評析我國金融消費者保護法之爭議處理機制，並探討金融消費者保護法施行後可能產生的爭議及提出建議，期能提供金融消費者簡易且公平之金融消費處理機制。 Because of the rapid development of the financial industry, the financial market, as well as its products and services, are involving increasing complexity and professional expertise. Compared with financial service providers, however, the consumers of financial services are facing an asymmetric situation in all aspects including financial strength, information and professional knowledge. This has led to a rising frequency of disputes over financial purchases. To achieve a balanced relationship between business owners and consumers, the Financial Supervisory Commission（FSC）of the Executive Yuan started working on the “Financial Service Act” in 2004 and proposed the draft of the “Financial Service Industry Act” in 2008, which, however, has not been approved. The FSC has since made continuous efforts in studying and communicating on these issues, and proposed the draft of the “Financial Consumer Protection Act”, endeavoring to strengthen consumer protection measures and establish a mechanism to settle financial purchase disputes by incorporating the relevant international legal practices and domestic rulings. The “Financial Consumer Protection Act” was approved by the Legislative Yuan after three readings and promulgated on December 30, 2011. Before the implementation of the “Financial Consumer Protection Act”, disputes on financial consumption were settled through various channels. These channels were however not well-integrated and were confusing to consumers. They caused various problems including a waste of social resources, lengthy procedures and a difficulty in monitoring the quality, etc. The financial crisis in 2008 has resulted in the loss of many domestic investors, as well as numerous disputes, in the process of remedy-seeking. The problems, therefore, have been emerging one after another.The purpose of this research, therefore, is to study and explore “The Mechanism for Settling Disputes under the Financial Consumer Protection Act”. The first chapter, the “introduction”, provides an explanation on the motivation, objectives, methodology and framework of the research. The second chapter deals with “The Problems about the Settlement of Financial Consumption Disputes Highlighted by the 2008 Financial crisis - taking the United Kingdom and the USA as examples”. It depicts the problems that have occurred in the United States and the United Kingdom after the financial crisis, due to the absence of a financial purchase dispute settlement mechanism, as well as the many financial reform policies taken by different countries afterwards to elevate the awareness of financial consumer protection. In addition to establishing an independent and integrated supervisory mechanism, the governments also had actively intervened in the financial transaction market, such as demanding more contractual obligations from the financial service providers and establishing designated complaint handling and ombudsman organizations to settle the fast-growing disputes of financial purchases. In the third chapter, a thorough study is made on the dispute settlement mechanism used in the country before the implementation of the Financial Consumer Protection Act. It is also pointed out in this chapter that the traditional practice of settling disputes through civil litigation is an overly lengthy and costly process, which may not successfully settle the disputes due to a lack of professionalism. An alternative is to settle the financial disputes through a designated dispute-settlement organization. This, however, involves a more-than-necessary number of channels that cause overlap and waste of resources. Furthermore, not all consumers can fully understand the difference between these channels and choose the most favorable option accordingly. A clear explanation is provided in this chapter on the relevant defects. The fourth chapter contains a discussion on the dispute settlement mechanism under the Financial Consumer Protection Act in Taiwan. In addition to explaining the legislative background and objectives of the Act, it also provides a detailed analysis and research on the scope of application, target groups of protection and the dispute settlement procedures. In the fifth and sixth chapters, the author has conducted a multi-faceted analysis and comparison of the financial purchase dispute settlement mechanisms in the United Kingdom and the United States. This is used as the basis to evaluate the dispute settlement mechanism under the Financial Consumer Protection Act in Taiwan, explore the potential disputes that may occur after the implementation of the Act and propose recommendations. The purpose is to provide a simple and fair dispute settlement mechanism for financial consumers. The seventh chapter contains a conclusion on all the points raised in the previous six chapters. |