东海大学法学研究第四十六期论我国金融消费者保护法之说明义务及.docVIP

論我國金融消費者保護法之說明義務及適合度規定－以日本法為參考* 蔡昌憲﹡﹡、廖沿臻** 目 次 壹、 貳、 一、 二、 三、小結 參、日本法上關於說明義務與適合性原則之立法與適用 一、日本法之說明義務及適合性原則 二、日本說明義務及適合性原則之實務判決 三、小結 肆、自日本法論我國金融消保法的問題與解決之道 一、違反說明義務和適合度規定之法律定性 二、適合度規定之歸責標準 三、調和說明義務及適合度規定的適用範圍 四、促進說明義務、適合度規定獲得履行之內控制度 伍、結論 中文關鍵詞： 連動債、金融消費者保護法、適合度、說明義務、金融商品、無過失責任 Key Words： Structured Notes, The Financial Consumer Protect Act, The Suitability Rule, The Duty of Disclosure, Financial Product, Strict Liability 中文摘要 本文首先介紹我國之金融消費者保護法，再由各相關判決進一步凸顯我國法在適合度及說明義務之規定上，仍有定位不清和適用上的些許問題。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，故我國和日本在這方面的比較便有其重要性。從而，本文於闡述日本對於適合性原則和說明義務之規範後，二國間立法和實務上之差異。 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未，且有關損害賠償在實務上有質和量的要件。至於說明義務，我國在判斷是否履行上仍過於形式化，而不像日本以實質要件進行考量，並確實依不同而就說明義務有不同的要求。未來我國在立法論上，可能應重新考量適合度的無過失責任是否適當回復到一般的抽象輕過失，以避免造成金融消費者的道德風險。在解釋論上，可能應更加考量說明義務之實質要件，而非僅契約之簽名等形式要件。 除說明義務和適合度本身之定性和判斷外，本文亦認為我國將說明義務與適合性之內部規則納入內控制度，應課予疏於監督內控制度之建立有效運作的董事與公司對金融消費者負連帶損害賠償責任 Abstract This article begins with the introduction of the Financial Consumer Protection Act (the “FCPA”) in Taiwan. Analyzing cases involving the FCPA, we can see that the nature of the suitability rule and the duty of disclosure under the FCPA are not so clear while the court judgments also conflict with each other. Given that the suitability rule and the duty of disclosure under the FCPA were imported from Japan, it is important to compare the rules between Taiwan and Japan. For that reason, this article introduces the suitability rule and the duty of disclosure in the context of financial instruments in Japan, and compares the differences between Taiwan and Japan. As for the suitability rule, Taiwan imposes a strict liability on financial services providers. However, Japan does not impose such a liability. Also, the judgments in Japan adopt a clear standard of quality and quantity in determining the breach of the suitability rule. As to the duty of disclosure, compared with those in Japan, the judgments in Taiwan are still a little bit too formalistic in that requirements on how to dis