消費者保護法第五十一條懲罰性賠償金制度之研究

Abstract

我國消費者保護法於民國83年立法時，引進英美法上的懲罰性賠償金制度，其立法目的在於懲罰與嚇阻惡性不法之企業經營者、維護消費安全。由於懲罰性賠償金係外於損害填補性質的金錢給付，在所謂「損害填補原則」下，該制度之正當性迄今仍有爭議。 本論文首先從制度沿革、發展背景與制度目的切入，於理論上論述懲罰性賠償金存在之必要性與正當性。此部份以比較法研究為主，說明兩大法系—英美法系與大陸法系國家—對於懲罰性賠償金制度的立場。本文認為民事責任除具有填補損害之功能之外，在一定情況下亦以預防�嚇阻不法行為為主要目的，懲罰性賠償金制度即是民事預防手段的一種，有效填補公私法分立造成法律調整的相對空白。 懲罰性賠償金既然以預防為主要目的，故適用要件以及法律效果的設計應該扣緊預防的目的，方合乎比例原則。故本論文第二部份，以我國實務判決為對象，採用案例分析方法研究消費者保護法第五十一條之懲罰性賠償金的解釋適用，包含「適用範圍」、「適用要件」與「適用之法律效果」三方面，並配合消保法規定體例，分就契約責任案件—定型化契約、特種買賣、不實廣告，以及侵權責任性質的商品或服務責任案件與懲罰性賠償金之適用深入探討之。 關於契約責任之案件適用懲罰性賠償金的可行性，本論文原則上持肯定見解，關鍵在於企業經營者違約的行為必須達到詐欺或濫用交易優勢的重大不法性程度。關於商品或服務責任案件，第一個問題在於消保法第五十一條主觀要件之解釋，參酌比較法與懲罰性賠償金之目的，本條之過失解釋上應限於「重大過失」，為求適用明確化並減少審理資源的浪費，將來宜修法解決；第二個問題在於企業經營者之員工所為不法行為，是否、以及如何令企業經營者負懲罰性賠償金責任，此涉及僱用人代負責任之爭議。 最後，觀察我國實務判決對於消保法第五十一條之適用，在諸多重大爭議上均未統一見解，對於懲罰性賠償金之數額更缺乏一定的審酌標準，導致該條規定未能充分發揮其嚇阻效果，折損立法者的美意，故本論文於結論提出若干修正建議。

Since Consumer Protection Law came into force in 1994, our legislators have introduced “punitive damages system” stemming from common law system. The purposes of legislation is to punish and deter the enterprises which commit highly censurable and illegal behavior as well as to protect consumers’ safety. Because punitive damages are non-compensatory damages, they are debating under the compensatory principles for damages in our civil code. This thesis includes the history, social background and purposes of this system to understand its rationale and justify its validity and necessity. This part mainly adopted comparative law analysis, discussing the confrontation of punitive damages between common law system and civil law system. This thesis considers that civil law has multiple functions. Usually, compensation is the most important function. However, prevention or deterrence may be the primary function under some circumstances. Punitive damages system is part of the prevention mechanism under civil law, and it is helpful to make up the enforcement gap due to the dual public and private systems. Considering that punitive damages system focuses on deterrence, the constitutive requirements and legal effect should be in accordance with the deterrent purpose to satisfy proportionality principle. The second part of this thesis starts from domestic judicial practice supplemented with the approach of case analysis to analyze the interpretation and application of Article 51 Consumer Protection Law. To meet the regulation system, this thesis discusses contractual liability cases, “standard contract”, “mail order merchandise and door-to-door sales” and “misleading advertising”, and tort liability cases in proper sequence. Concerning the application scope of punitive damages, this thesis approves that punitive damages are applicable to contractual liability cases. However, the breach must be serious as fraud or oppression. There are two issues raised from products and service liability cases. First, the explanation of subjective requirement of Article 51 Consumer Protection Law is incomplete. According to comparative law approach and the purposes of punitive damages, “negligence” under the requirement of Article 51 should limit to “gross negligence” from an interpretivists viewpoint. The law should be modified in the future. The second is to explore whether the employer, i.e. the enterprise, blameworthy when the employee of an enterprise commits wrongs. This issue is related to vicarious liability and punitive damages. Last, this thesis finds that domestic cases present significant differences amoung the important issues in interpretation and application of Article 51 Consumer Protection Law. Moreover, our judicial practice has yet to provide a set of systematic guidelines to decide proper amount of punitive damages. The rough and rash application jeopardizes the deterrent effect of this article. Therefore, the thesis expects to point out certain defects of this article, and provide solutions and suggestions for legal reform.