懲罰性賠償金係透過課予加害人超出被害人損害之賠償，達成制裁加害人，並嚇阻加害人以及其他行為人從事相類行為。該制度係源自於英國，並自英國傳遞自美國，並於美國廣泛盛行。懲罰性賠償金制度具有懲罰、嚇阻、設立典範之功能、執行法律等功能，惟其係私法下之概念，卻帶有懲罰目的之公法性質，跨越兩種領域使其極具爭議性。 消費者保護法第51條將英美法之懲罰性賠償金制度引進，致使我國民刑分立之法體系產生模糊地帶。關於我國實務對於懲罰性賠償金之態度，得以自其就消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋觀察。然實務就要件之解釋未盡統一，如此將導致當事人無所適從。 2015年6月17日修正之消費者保護法第51條，明確將「重大過失」納入規定，顯見立法者對於企業經營者採取更為嚴格之態度。如此修正固解決長久以來「過失」是否應限縮於「重大過失」之爭議，惟關於消費者保護法第51條其他要件之解釋，仍有尚未解決之問題。 觀諸消費者保護法第51條之要件，「依本法所提之訴訟」於「本法」及「訴訟」即存在寬嚴不同之解釋。另關於該條文之責任主體，企業經營者是否就其受僱人之懲罰性賠償金責任負責，又企業經營者間之責任關係為何，皆有釐清之必要。請求權主體之部分，消費者保護法第7條規定之「第三人」並未出現於第51條懲罰性賠償金之規定中，產生消費者以外之「第三人」是否為請求權主體之爭議。另外，被害人死亡時懲罰性賠償金之歸屬，亦為立法者制定該條文規定時，未審慎思考致生之法律漏洞。究竟被害人死亡時，應由間接被害人抑或繼承人請求懲罰性賠償金，無論如何結論之擇採，皆有賴縝密之法律邏輯推演。最後於懲罰性賠償金之計算，2015年6月17日明確懲罰輕過失行為以及提高倍數上限之修正，其妥適性為何；又消費者保護法第51條規定之計算基礎「損害額」之意義、計算時酌定之因素、與有過失之考量等，皆有待解決。本文以整理消費者保護法第51條懲罰性賠償金適用上之爭議，並嘗試透過學說及實務見解之分析歸納出合理之結論，並就結論之推演，參考部分日本法學說，期能對於消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋提供另一種思考方向。 / Punitive damages are extra monetary burdens which make the offender to pay more than those the injured has lost, in order to deter the offender and other offenders from behaving the same. The doctrine of punitive damages is originated from England and swept America. Punitive damages have the functions of punishment, deterrence, setting examples to the society, law enforcement and so on. However, it is controversial that the doctrine of punitive damages is the concept under civil law, but with the function of punishment, which makes the doctrine in the borderland between public and private law. Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act is the doctrine of punitive damages in Taiwan, which causes a gray area among the separation of civil law and criminal law, and makes Art. 51 controversial. It is not difficult to know the attitude of the judges toward punitive damages by understanding the explanation of Art. 51. But there is no consistency in the explanation of each element of Art. 51, which makes the Article bewildering. On June 17, 2015, gross negligence has been added to the amended Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, which shows the strict attitude of the legislators toward the business operators. This amendment solves the problem that whether negligence should be limited to gross negligence or not, but there still are other issues about Art. 51 Which should be solved. Among Art. 51, “this law” and “litigation” in the element of “in a litigation brought in accordance with this law” are explained in both strict and easing ways. About the subject of the legal responsibility of Art. 51, whether the business operators should be responsible for the act of their employees, and whether business operators should be jointly and severally liable for punitive damages are issues should be discussed. About the claimers of Art. 51, comparing Art. 7 to Art. 51, we can find that “third party” isn’t showed in Art. 51, which brings up to the issue that whether third party other than consumer can claim for punitive damages. Also, who can claim for punitive damages when the victim dies is an important issue. The legislators did not think of this kind of situation, which caused legislation imperfection among Art. 51. Whether the indirect victim or the successor should be the claimer of punitive damages in this kind of situation should be explained carefully and logically. Last but not least, in related to the calculation of punitive damages, the amendment of Art. 51 in June, 17, 2015 specifies that objective negligence and subjective negligence should be punished and the maximum limit on the amount of damages has been raised. Whether the amendment is proper or not, and whether “the amount of damages” should be confined to “property damages” should be clarified. It is also necessary to figure out the considerations of determination of the amount. Whether comparative negligence should be considered while deciding the amount of punitive damages is also controversial, which should be investigated prudently. This thesis will focus on Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act and the issues about it. This thesis will analyze those issues according to the theories and opinions of practice in Taiwan. American theories and Japanese theories will also be discussed in this thesis in order to solve the problems, and to provide a different view of Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act.