語系: 繁體中文
說明(常見問題)
圖資館首頁
登入
切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

論金融消費者保護法制之說明義務--以比較法制及投資型保險商品為中心 = ...
~
國立高雄大學法律學系碩士班

 

  • 論金融消費者保護法制之說明義務--以比較法制及投資型保險商品為中心 = A Study on the Disclosure Duties of the Financial Consumer Protection legal system—Focusing on the comparative legal systems and the Investment-Oriented Insurance Products
  • 紀錄類型: 書目-語言資料,印刷品 : 單行本
    並列題名: A Study on the Disclosure Duties of the Financial Consumer Protection legal system—Focusing on the comparative legal systems and the Investment-Oriented Insurance Products
    作者: 陳玫君,
    其他團體作者: 國立高雄大學
    出版地: [高雄市]
    出版者: 撰者;
    出版年: 2014[民103]
    面頁冊數: 213面圖，表 : 30公分;
    標題: 金融消費者保護法
    標題: Financial Consumer Protection Act
    電子資源: http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/63094118063034538815
    附註: 參考書目：面197-203
    附註: 103年12月16日公開
    摘要註: 因雷曼兄弟公司破產所發生之金融風暴，影響所及遍及全球，在台灣引發之連動債投資糾紛不斷，因欠缺相關規範使台灣投資人索求無門，追究其問題之癥結，主要在於推介及銷售該金融商品時，未善盡說明義務所致，惟因當時有關金融業者之說明義務尚無明文規範。也促使我國對於金融消費者保護的重視，為健全金融市場的運作及落實金融消費者權益的保護，行政院金融監督管理委員會於2007年提出《金融服務法草案》作為整合性之規範，並於2008年完成修正案，更正名稱為《金融服務業法》，惟於2010年為行政院退回後，即處於停滯狀態，於是金管會再提出《金融消費者保護法》草案，並於2011年12月30日正式實施，做為金融消費者之保護之依據。有鑑於近年來，金融商品以前所未有的速度占據廣大消費者的生活領域，加以金融商品之設計複雜，又涉及艱澀專業知識，使金融業者與金融消費者間不論在資訊上、財力上及議約能力上形成極大之差距，而造成金融交易糾紛層出不窮的原因，主要便來自雙方資訊及地位之不對稱，若僅依民法及消費者保護法之規範，作為解決金融交易糾紛的規範，恐力有未逮。本論文擬從資訊不對稱之角度，以及金融消費者保護法為中心來討論說明義務，試分析其起源、法理基礎及性質，並就金融消費者保護法施行前，依民法及消費者保護法之規範，作為解決金融服務業者及金融消費者間紛爭手段之法律效果；並檢證《金融消費者保護法》施行後，有關說明義務的制度的評析及配套措施，然因金融商品種類繁多，擬就一般消費者最容易接受，並經常當作保本與理財工具的投資型保險商品為中心，針對說明義務的制度加以討論，以助釐清說明義務對於金融交易及金融消費者保護的重要性，就現行規範的適用問題，以及舊法時期適用法規的問題加以探討；並以英日兩國作為比較，就其兩國金融改革與說明義務的規範，來分析我國法制若干欠缺之處，來加強說明義務規範的重要性，試圖分析說明義務在履行上可能不足之處，並提出相應的修法建議。 The financial crisis caused by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers affected the entire world and caused countless disputes in Taiwan over the investment in structured notes. Because such investments were not regulated, Taiwanese investors could not file claims against any party. The ultimate cause of this issue is that sellers of such financial instruments did not fulfill their duty of disclosure when they promote and sell such financial instruments. However, such a situation arose because the duty of disclosure on the part of financial institutions was not defined in statutes. This situation also instigated Taiwan to place greater emphasis on the protection of financial consumers. To ensure the reliable functions of the financial markets and implement the protection of financial consumers, the Financial Supervisory Commission of the Executive Yuan proposed the “Draft of Financial Service Act,” which was meant to be a comprehensive regulation. The revision of this draft was completed in 2008 and it was renamed as the “Financial Service Industry Act.” However, after the Executive Yuan rejected this draft in 2010, no progress has been made since then. The Financial Supervisory Commission again proposed the “Financial Consumer Protection Act,” and this law became effective on December 30, 2011, serving as a basis of protecting financial consumers.Because financial instruments have become a greater and greater part of consumers’ lives at unprecedented speed in recent years, and financial instruments are designed in a complicated manner and involve highly technical professional knowledge, a massive inequality is created between financial institutions and financial consumers in terms of information, financial wherewithal, and the ability to negotiate contracts. The reason why there are so many disputes in financial transactions is mostly the disparity of information and legal position of both parties. If the government only relies on the regulations set forth in the Civil Code and Consumer Protection Act as the regulation of resolving disputes in financial transactions, the government may not have enough tools at its disposal.This paper plans to discuss and explain duty of disclosure from the viewpoints of the information asymmetry and the focus of Financial Consumer Protection Act. This paper will analyze the origin, the basis of jurisprudence, and nature of duty of disclosure. This paper will discuss the legal outcome of relying on the regulations in Civil Code and Consumer Protection Act as means of dispute resolution between financial service institutions and financial consumers. This paper will use The United Kingdom and Japan as comparison. This paper will analyze the various deficiencies of our nation’s laws against the examples of financial reforms and regulations on duty of disclosure in those two countries and highlight the importance of regulations on duty of disclosure. This paper will also review the evaluation and measures of implementation on duty of disclosure after “Financial Consumer Protection Act” comes into effect. However, because there are numerous financial instruments, this paper will focus on investment-linked insurance that is most popular among ordinary consumers and used as a means of capital preservation and wealth management. This paper will discuss requirements on duty of disclosure to help clarify the importance of duty of disclosure for financial transactions and the protection of financial consumers. This paper attempts to analyze and explicate the possible deficiencies of duty-to-disclose in its implementation and propose corresponding recommendations in the revision of the law over the applicability of current regulations and the applicable laws when past regulations were in effect.
館藏
  • 2 筆 • 頁數 1 •
 
310002501503 博碩士論文區(二樓) 不外借資料 學位論文 TH 008M/0019 380101 7511.1 2014 一般使用(Normal) 在架 0
310002501511 博碩士論文區(二樓) 不外借資料 學位論文 TH 008M/0019 380101 7511.1 2014 c.2 一般使用(Normal) 在架 0
  • 2 筆 • 頁數 1 •
評論
Export
取書館別
 
 
變更密碼
登入