消費者保護法懲罰性賠償金之歸屬於我國法下的正當化論述

Abstract

懲罰性賠償金制度自西元 1985 年首次於著作權法引入以來，立法者已於多部特別法中，例如：消費者保護法、健康食品管理法、道路及交通管理處罰條例等，引入此一制度。其中，又以消費者保護法中之討論最多，司法實務上的應用也最為廣泛，故本文擬先以消費者保護法中之懲罰性賠償金作為討論核心，先予敘明。 懲罰性賠償金在美國一向有著「意外之財」的批評，且其制度特色將使被害人得以請求超越其所受實際損害之賠償，與歐陸法系國家所強調之「損害填補」原則有所扞格，導致此一制度在歐陸法系國家並不常見。因此，歐陸法系國家關於懲罰性賠償金之討論多集中在外國懲罰性賠償金判決是否適宜於國內的執行上。我國之損害賠償法制，主要繼受自德國及瑞士法系，傳統上對於損害賠償的態度也採取「損害填補」原則，故學者也多有認為民事法領域中不應該帶有懲罰之色彩。因此，在懲罰性賠償金制度引入國內以來，亦不乏反對聲浪，而國內學者也常以民、刑分立作為立論，反對懲罰性賠償金制度的引入。 不過，懲罰性賠償金制度自首次被引入以來，迄今已有數十載。立法者短時間內也未有要廢除此一制度之打算，故目前對於懲罰性賠償金制度應將之理解成其已屬於我國法制度之一部分，是重心應該置於該制度與我國法制之和諧融合。截至目前為止，無論是在何種特別法中，懲罰性賠償金一向全歸屬於被害人，然其背後之主要功能如係在懲罰及嚇阻，則其全額歸由被害人取得是否具有正當性，乃一值得探究之問題。國內關於懲罰性賠償金之討論雖有部分文獻提及「意外之財」之特色，但並未有針對被害人取得該筆賠償金之正當性進行探討，此部分之討論仍屬缺乏。職是之故，本文乃欲以此為基礎進行探討，嘗試尋找可行的解決途徑，並提出可能的立法方向，以充實懲罰性賠償金制度存於我國之正當性，以減少「意外之財」的批評。

Since its introduction in the Copyright Act in 1985, the system of punitive damages has been incorporated into several special laws in Taiwan, such as the Consumer Protection Act, Health Food Control Act, and Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act. Among these, the Consumer Protection Act has received the most attention and has been widely applied in judicial practice. Therefore, this thesis will focus on discussing punitive damages under the Consumer Protection Act. Punitive damages have long been criticized in the United States for being a form of “windfall” and for allowing victims to claim compensation beyond their actual damages. This deviates from the principle of indemnity emphasized in civil law countries, leading to its infrequent occurrence in continental European legal systems. Consequently, discussions in continental European countries regarding punitive damages often revolve around the appropriateness of enforcing foreign punitive damages judgments domestically. Taiwan’s system of compensatory damages is primarily derived from the German and Swiss legal systems, which traditionally adopt the principle of indemnity. As a result, many scholars believe that civil law should not incorporate punitive elements. Therefore, since the introduction of the system of punitive damages, there has been opposition, with domestic scholars often arguing against its implementation based on the principles of the separation of civil and criminal jurisdictions. However, since its initial introduction, the system of punitive damages has been in place for several decades, and there are currently no plans by legislators to abolish it. Therefore, the current understanding of the punitive damages system should recognize it as an integral part of Taiwan’s legal system, and the focus should be on achieving harmonization between this system and the overall legal framework. Until now, under all special laws, punitive damages have always been awarded to the victims. However, whether the primary function behind this system, such as punishment and deterrence, justifies the full award of punitive damages to the victims, is a question worthy of exploration. Although some literature in Taiwan has mentioned the characteristics of “windfall” associated with punitive damages, there has been insufficient discussion of the legitimacy of victims receiving such compensation. Therefore, this thesis aims to address this gap by exploring viable solutions and proposing potential legislative directions to enhance the legitimacy of the punitive damages system in Taiwan and reduce criticisms of it as a “windfall”.