近幾年來金融科技快速發展,傳統金融業被破壞式創新顛覆, 智能投顧的興起改變了資產管理行業的傳統模式,填補了一般大 眾理財市場的空缺。隨著互聯網理財模式在中國得到大眾認可, 智能投顧平台在中國開始萌芽,處於探索階段。在這樣的背景下, 本研究以中國智能投顧市場為研究對象,採用歸納法和對比分析 法,探究中國智能投顧業發展趨勢之相關實務。 本文根據前人的研究,對智能投顧的概念、特徵以及類型進 行了總結,歸納全球各國智能投顧業發展現況;根據中國財富管 理市場成熟程度來分析中國智能投顧業發展前景;參考美國智能 投顧發展模式和中國 P2P 網路借貸平台發展模式,歸納出適合中 國發展智能投顧業的經驗:1)讓傳統金融業者成為行業領導者, 2)明確服務範疇,規範從業證照,3)對算法進行嚴格監管,4) 發展被動型基金,財富管理市場產品多樣化,5)儘早建立完善 的風控體系;此外還根據各國智能投顧業之監管措施,對中國監 管機關􏰀出宏觀的監管建議,並希望此研究報告對之後想要進一 步研究智能投顧的學者􏰀供參考。

邇來，數家壽險公司，包含2009年之國華人壽、2014年之國寶人壽與幸福人壽以及2016年之朝陽人壽，陸續遭主管機關金融監督管理委員會（下稱金管會）宣布接管，並委由保險安定基金辦理國華人壽、國寶人壽與幸福人壽之標售退場程序。上開問題壽險業之資本適足率未達法定標準或淨值為負時，金管會與相關單位未立即積極處理，甚而遭監察院糾正金管會未正視問題保險業退場法制之缺失並加以修正改善。面對問題壽險業失卻清償能力之窘境，立法機關在問題保險業退場法制上有幅度甚廣之修法，先後自2014年6月4日公布調整安定基金之權限與問題保險業之監理措施，以及參照外國立法例增訂過渡保險機制；2015年2月4日則修正公布資本適足率標準之分級，進而明確制定主管機關得採取之監理措施與其效果。 　　然而，其中有關過渡保險機制之立意雖屬良善，相關法制架構，付之闕如。考察美國、加拿大與日本等國家之保戶保障機制，有以過渡保險機構處理問題壽險業之經驗與制度，為貫徹有效維持保戶保障之處理原則，若我國保戶保障機制除承接問題保險業之保險契約外，另設過渡保險公司承接問題保險業之資產、負債與營業，具有重大實益。參酌他國之實務經驗與制度，本文建議《保險法》第149條之2第3項規定，對於所謂過度保險機制應提高位階，修改為以保險法明訂或以保險法明確授權之法規命令立法方式，授權主管機關得就過渡保險機構之具體內容與範圍加以明訂相關辦法。另考量我國保險法制與監理環境，且實務慣例上多委託保險安定基金擔任接管人，由其發揮過渡機構之功能而自行承接問題保險業之保險契約，實乃治絲益棻。本文建議未來管理辦法應應以保險安定基金透過設立過渡保險公司承接問題保險業之資產、負債與營業為宜。

在各國政府部門為減輕財政負擔、提高行政效能，紛紛引進民間資源並與私部門建立夥伴關係之全球性風潮推波助瀾下，我國近年亦力倡政府瘦身、組織精簡、引用民力、公私協力。再者，運用民力參與公共任務之公私協力，寓有私部門自主規制成分，惟法學上自主規制與公私協力通常為分離探討之論題，兩者之關連性究為何；又兩者態樣眾多且無普世同意之定義，在多元分殊之學理及實務中，是否存在共通並行之法理脈絡與類型系譜，誠屬行政法總論上饒富逸趣之課題。另行政法各論上，為預防火災以維護公共安全並確保人民生命財產，各國莫不多方運用公私協力與自主規制，建構建築物之消防安全管理制度，惟綜觀國內有關公私協力與自主規制之法學論著尤以前者可謂繁花錦簇，事涉公共安全之消防火災預防行政領域相關研究則付諸闕如猶待開拓。 本文爰透過中外文獻梳理公私協力與自主規制法學理論，並放眼國際取樣研究運用公私協力與自主規制之消防行政實務規範，以歐盟與英國為取法對象，就消防安全管理制度硬體層面及軟體層面分別探討歐盟產品（兼及建築產品［再兼及消防安全設備產品］）監管機制以及英國建築物防火安全管理機制。除解析法理基礎更探究實務規範架構於我國與先進國家之異同，期許回饋提供公私協力與自主規制所涉行政法理論若干啟示並促使本國相關消防行政規範更趨周全。 / In the wake of global trend of government department introducing private resources and establishing partnerships with private sectors to reduce financial burden and improve administrative efficacy, Taiwan authorities in recent years have also been advocating government downsizing, streamlining organizations, adopting private resources, and public private partnership. Furthermore, public private partnership contains private sector’s self-regulation element, but in jurisprudential circle, self-regulation and public private partnership are usually independently researched topics, what are the exact relationships between them; otherwise, each of both has great variety of types and has not universally consented definition, therefore, it seems to be an issue full of keen interest for General Administrative Law: whether there exists common legal context and typological pedigree in the pluralistic and divergent theories and practices of public private partnership and self-regulation. Besides, as regards Specific Administrative Law, in order to prevent fires for protecting public safety and people's lives and property, countries all over the world utilize various approaches to public private partnership and self-regulation, to construct fire protection management regime for buildings; the domestic juristic studies of public private partnership and self-regulation have overall fruitful achievements, especially the former, however, apparently none of them refers to fire protection administrative category that thus eagerly needs to be cultivated. This thesis wherefore sorted domestic and foreign juristic literature about public private partnership and self-regulation, and combed internationally relative fire protection administrative legislation. Focusing on legislation of European Union and United Kingdom, it separately explored hardware dimension and software dimension of fire protection management regimes, that is, EU’s product safety and market surveillance regime (involving that for construction product [further involving that for fixed fire fighting equipment]) and UK’s fire safety regime. In addition to analyzing the legal theories and exploring the similarities and differences of legislative framework between EU or UK and Taiwan, it expects to provide several revelations to the jurisprudence of public private partnership and self-regulation, and to actuate the relative domestic fire protection legislation more comprehensively.

專門職業過去向以其負擔無限責任豎立專業形象，然英美等大型訴訟的發生反使得專業人士成了求償的「深口袋」，這正是英美有限責任合夥制度產生的濫觴。 英美的有限責任合夥立法初衷，係為律師、會計師等專業人士承擔無限責任尋求解套的途徑，而面對我國專門職業者如律師、會計師等，亦遭遇大案，面臨無限責任沈重負擔之際，本論文嘗試從英美法制，尤其是以美國法制為著眼點，尋求制度引進的可行性。事實上令專業負有限責任，在美國尚可組成專業公司或有限責任企業，然此兩種制度除了稅制考量外，也較偏向公司經營管理，甚至因為可以公開招募而容易觸動聯邦證券交易法的干預，也因此，有限責任合夥延續舊有合夥法律關係的組織特性，廣受傳統上以合夥成立的專業組織所青睞。 以美國有限責任合夥法制而言，其本質為合夥，因此其優勢為保有合夥諸多彈性自由的管理規則，賦予合夥人廣大的協議空間，另一方面使合夥人僅負有限責任，免除無限責任的負累，然反面觀之，其最爭議者在於債權人保護的疑慮，美國於2001年爆發恩隆弊案，涉案的安達信會計師事務所正是於伊利諾州註冊登記為有限責任合夥，有限責任合夥在恩隆案中於是受到前所未有的考驗，事實上在美國各州，也透過保險、獨立基金的設置甚至揭開面紗法則適用不同程度保障債權人。 相較之下，英國的有限責任合夥法制，則以公司法為其內涵，因此有限責任合夥法受到更多的管理與限制，除了內部管理沿襲合夥的規定外，在事務執行及破產清算等，均需依循公司法規的管制，在債權人保護上英國法則直接在其有限責任合夥法規定成員擔保及資產取回的機制。 本文認為在立法走向上，得借鏡美國法制，另立新法，使有限責任合夥維持其合夥本質，並賦予法人格，且加強債權人保護之配套措施，期能提供專業組織架構的另一選擇。 / Professionals such as accountants and lawyers used to keep its reputation by taking unlimited liability. However, such unlimited liability makes these professionals to be deep pockets, as the result of the frequent lawsuits in recent years. Due to this reason, adopting limited liability partnership (LLP) seems to be the solution. LLP is a form of doing business, combining the feature of a limited corporation and the flexibility of a general partnership. LLP in United Kingdom and United States all granted the privilege of limited liability to the innocent partners, also keeping their personal assets apart from the creditors’ claim. LLP is available to all types of business in UK; however, in some US states, the LLP is only available to specific licensed professionals. Because of the character of the limited liability, protecting the interest of the creditors would be the most significant problem. To solve this dilemma, US adopt several methods such as using the insurance, doctrine of piercing the veil and creating the asset segregation to balance the interest between the professionals and the creditors. In UK, the company law and insolvency law all tried to cover LLP, in order to keep the LLP’s assets as a guarantee to creditors; such laws also request to disclose important business information of prospective risks to the public. Besides, both UK and US laws require the word “LLP” must be specified in the name of any LLP organizations. In 2001, the Enron scandal was a shock to the world. Arthur Andersen, a well known LLP accounting firm which provides dishonest service for Enron, has triggered the debate of whether LLP is still appropriate. Therefore, my study is going to analyze the pros and cons of LLP in the following chapter. Because of the unlimited liability is the only choice for professionals in Taiwan, we are going to learn from the UK and US laws. As for my conclusion, it is necessary enact an LLP Act to provide an alternative to the professionals.