本論文於結構安排上，首章係為緒論，內容涵蓋有研究動機及目的、研究方法、研究範圍及架構；而於第二章將探討限制提出攻擊防禦方法之法理基礎及所涉基本權干預；第三章則對於事證提出及失權規定立法例之加以介紹；第四章則首就我國民事訴訟法一般訴訟促進義務下之失權制度，為要件及效力之介紹，再以其為基礎下，探討特別訴訟促進義務、特殊訴訟促進義務之失權規定要件、效力介紹及異同比較，並對於具法律重要性之實務見解予以評析；第五章則除探討民事訴訟第一審程序失權規定與其他同法程序制度之價值調和問題，復將對民事訴訟法第196條、第268條之2及第276條規定為合憲性控制之操作；第六章則為本論文綜整及結論。

本文所稱「海事留置權」，係指兩岸海商法、台灣民法、大陸擔保法與合同法及兩岸其他特別法所定，與廣義海事上有關之船、貨和其他動產之留置權而言。詳言之，海事留置權之種類包括：依台灣民法物權編留置權章及大陸擔保法留置章取得之留置權、建造或修繕船舶人之船舶留置權、運送人或承攬運送人之貨物留置權、運送人或船長對於未清償共同海損分擔額之貨物留置權、船舶出租人之留置權、承拖人對被拖物之留置權、救助人對獲救船舶、貨物及其他財產之留置權、倉庫營業人之留置權、行紀人之留置權、信託法之留置權。有鑒於台灣民法物權編修正草案已作大幅度之增修，近年來大陸又積極推動研訂統一民法典工作，並已審訂通過民法（草案）其中第二編物權法（草案）部分之第二次審議稿，且大陸亦有學者對其海商法作出修改建議，值此新舊過渡現行法理論與實務多所歧異之際，藉機綜合研析，並作兩岸擔保物權領域的法制與實務之比較，此外，將來兩岸開放三通後，日後涉及債權擔保之民事事項與海事事項勢必與日俱增，船、貨留置之事件，亦將層出不窮，兩岸法院、仲裁機構、法學專家及人民適用彼岸地區規定之情形尤當頻繁，此時以兩岸海事留置權為中心，就可能衍生之相關實體與程序問題，予以深入比較探討，並發表所見，期能有助於國人就此一論題之瞭解，兼可供作兩岸法學研究、司法實務及立法之參考，此乃本文研究之主要目的。茲說明本論文之主要章節架構如次： 第一章 緒論 本章乃就研究本論題之動機、範圍與方法作一說明。 第二章 兩岸海事留置權之取得 本章首先就海事留置權之意義與海事留置權之種類予以概述後，再就依一般規定取得之海事留置權，其成立之積極要件與消極要件加以說明，接著就非依一般規定取得之海事留置權，其成立所須具備之要件按各種海事留置權分款予以析述。以上論點並就兩岸之異同為比較。 第三章 兩岸海事留置權之效力與消滅 本章就海事留置權之效力，按海事留置權對債權之擔保效力、海事留置權對留置物之支配力及海事留置權對留置權人之約束力分項予以論述，最後則就海事留置權之消滅略作說明。以上論點並就兩岸之異同為比較。 第四章 兩岸海事留置權之實行 本章分別就台灣與大陸關於海事留置權實行之條件、海事留置權實行之方法及海事留置權實行之程序予以論述，並作兩岸法制比較，以明其實行之條件、方法及程序之異同。 第五章 涉彼岸海事留置權爭議處理及認可執行之法律適用 本章分別就台灣及大陸對涉及彼岸海事留置權爭議處理之法律適用，及相互對在彼岸取得拍賣留置物之裁判或仲裁判斷等執行名義為認可執行之法律適用予以論述，以明就涉及彼岸海事留置權爭議處理之準據法，及相互認可彼岸執行名義並予執行之法律依據。 第六章 建議（代結論） 本章綜合研究所得，對於兩岸關於海事留置權及相關法制規範，以及學者之理解或司法實務所持見解，認為有欠妥適之處，提出檢討，並作出立法、修法或變更見解之建議方案，以代結論，俾有助於兩岸海事留置權及相關法制規範與解釋之修正與完善。 關鍵字：海事留置權、船舶留置權、貨物留置權、人保物保責任平等說、物保責任優先說、中華人民共和國海事訴訟特別程序法、中華人民共和國拍賣法、區際法律衝突、區際私法、民事確定裁判與仲裁判斷之認可執行、船舶優先權催告程序、臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例。

本論文將法務部行政執行署所屬行政執行處依據行政執行法為行政執行中，因相關之法律問題，致造成公法上金錢給付義務事件不能很迅速地結案，即有障礙者，統稱之為「行政執行障礙法律問題」。 本論文除第一章為緒論及第八章為結論外，自第二章起至第七章，分章就行政執行名義、行政執行標的、行政執行程序救濟管道、合併執行、輔助性之人身執行-拘提管收部分及執行憑證等法律問題見解爭議之態樣，探討各法律問題態樣於行政執行實務上不同之見解爭議，並論述目前實務作法或提出建議方案。 另為方便參閱本論文涉及之重要條文、司法院解釋、最高法院及最高行政法院相關決議，亦於本論文末摘錄部分內容，以供參考。

撫卹的本意不在於造就一個創造更多財富的家庭，當然也不僅在於用來濟助貧困遺族的生活所需；其真實用意係期藉諸合理的撫卹給與及相關配套措施，俾一則讓在職死亡公務人員的遺族得以感受政府對於死亡公務人員的仰慰之意；二則用以協助當事公務人員的遺族能渡過一段艱困的時期；至其最終目的則希望能建構出自由安全的社會；而這種本於自由安全社會理念所建構的撫卹措施亦才是一個有正義的社會所應秉持的建設理念。因此，撫卹制度之是否能審慎地規劃出適當的法制，自來就是倡議具有正義理念的社會安全理論者所重視的最主要課題之一。 然而，隨著社會安全理論的典範移轉，本於「正義」的普世價值來建構出「人人各得其所，各遂其生」的理想生活型態，已然是秉持憲政民主理念以治事的民主法治國家所堅持的基本目標之一。準此而言，當我們本於正義概念所強調的意涵從新來檢視我國現行公務人員撫卹法制所規範的種種機制的時候，我們乃不得不對於「我國現行公務人員撫卹法制之是否能發展成符合正義價值的良善制度」，投注更多的關心與努力。因此本項研究乃以「我國公務人員撫卹法制的綜合意涵為「經」，並以「實質公平正義的概念為「緯」作為研究的架構，進行交互論證，並期超越單向度的線性思考選輯，本諸「守」與「變」的互動模式，來論究「我國公務人員撫卹制度的重建」方案，俾能對我國公務人員撫卹法制的發展有所助益。 因此，本項研究文乃先就「公務人員撫卹措施」與「社會安全」的相容性，導論出「撫卹必須要能融入社會安全之思維，進而本諸正義概念所期於體現的實質意涵。以建構出「均無貧、和無寡、安無傾」的自由安全社會」的論結（第貳章第一節）；而後再就倫理及行政法理的層面，導出「正義概念」在學理上所應重視的「正當程序」、「公平原則」、「秉道執中」及「公益維護」等四大意涵（第貳章第二節）；其後則以「我國公務人員撫卹法制的綜合意涵為「經」，並以「實質公平正義的概念為「緯」作為研究的架構（第貳章第三節），再檢閱世界先進國家（美、英、日等國）及我國現行公務人員撫卹法制的內涵）第參、肆章），並依據上開所導出的正義意涵，深入檢討分析我國現行公務人員撫卹法制之是否吻合於「正義的意涵」（第伍章）；最後再循「典範移轉」的啟示，跳脫傳統線性思考的選輯，提出本頊研究的發現，進而本於上揭「正義的四大意涵」，研提出若干重新建構我國公務人員撫卹制度的具體建言（第陸章）。 重要名詞：1.「正當程序」、2.「公平原則」、3.「秉道執中」4.「公益維護」5.「憲政民主」、6.「公民社會」、7.「自由安全社會」 / Pension is not meant to create more wealth for a family, nor remedies to the survivals in poverty for an affordable life. The genuine intent of pension serves two purposes. One is for the government to express to the survivals its appreciation and condolences of a civil service died in the course of performing duties and the other is to help the survival to pull through a certain period of hardship. The ultimate objective of pension is to seek building up a free and secure society. Pension measures based on the idea of establishing a free and secure society shall be the ideas for the efforts of reconstruction of a society of justice to stick to. Therefore, whether an appropriate legal framework can be carefully mapped out for a pension system has been one of the key topics highly regarded by those fundamentals who promote a social security with justice. However, to cope with the "Paradigm Shift" of social security theories, justice-based popular value to realize an idealistic living style wherein every one enjoys justified living means and social status has become one of the basic objectives held fast in any democratic nation practicing constitutionalism. Accordingly, we have to invest more concerns and efforts to focus on the issue that "if the existing pension system of civil service of our country is sufficient to be developed into a system of good faith that meets the value of justice" while we are refreshing out review of various mechanisms set forth in the existing pension system of civil service in the point of justice. This paper, with the attempt to help in the development of the pension system of civil service, is constructed by having "the general context of the pension system of civil service of the Republic of China" as a weft, and by having the "the concept of substantial fair and justice" as the waft as the framework to proceed cross arguents in the hope of going beyond the one dimension of linear logic of thinking to challenge the option of "Reconstruction of Pension System of Civil Service of the Republic of China" according to the interaction modes between being conservative and revolutionary. In this paper, the compatibility between "pension measures" and "social security" is first touched for the inference of the conclusion that "the pension must be incorporated with the thoughts of social security for the construction of a free and secure society that "shares common wealth without poverty, common peace without misfortune and common security without instability" by following the substantial context realized from the point of justice (Sec.1,Chap.Ⅱ); followed by angling at the aspects of ethics and administration legal principles, four major areas of context, respectively, "justice procedure", "fair principle", "impartial practice" and "maintenance of public interest" that should be taken serious in the scientific theory of "the concept of justice" are inferred (Sec.2,Chap.Ⅱ); then intervened with "the general context of the pension system of the Republic of China" as the weft and "the concept of substantial justice and fair" as the waft for the framework of the research (Sec.3,Chap.Ⅲ), those pension systems currently and respectively adopted in advanced nations (UK, USA and Japan) and in our country are examined (Chap.Ⅲ and Chap.Ⅳ); later based on the "context of justice" as inferred, an in-depth review is made to analyze the compliance of the existing pension system of our country with such context of justice (Chapter V); and finally, by following the teachings revealed in the "Paradigm Shift" to take a leap from the conventional logic of linear thinking for presenting the findings of the research, and further to make feasible proposals for the reconstruction of the pension system of civil service based on those four major contexts of justice as disclosed above (Chap.Ⅳ). Keyword: 1.justice procedure 2 .fair principal 3. impartial practice 4. maintenance of public interes 5. constitutional democracy 5. civil society 6. free and secure society

首長特別費事件演變至今，焦點都被導向高度抽象的政治議題，民間失去發言或制衡的空間，讓許多深刻值得探問的價值問題，陷入無法討論的困境，但本文要追問的根本問題是：法律，對現今台灣的民眾來說，所代表的意義是什麼？是把法律看成一種限制他們行動領域的規範，對法律採取一種戰戰兢兢算計犯法後果的策略性態度？還是把法律視為一種具正當性與有效性的行為規範，發自內心對法律採取尊重的態度？算計自己最大的利益，真的就是我們人類追求理性的最終結果嗎？如何縮小這些鴻溝，或許就是我們該戮力的地方。 哈伯瑪斯認為法律取得其正當性，與溝通行動之間具有相似的結構性，所以力主引進「溝通理性」，作為法規範產生及運用的構成基礎。但從法律理論的角度來看，哈氏認為現代法律秩序要從「自決」這個概念獲得其正當性，而且公民應從論述或審議的模式切入，同時把自己理解為所要服從的法律的承受者及創制者。對於裁判理性，哈氏曾針對四種具代表性的不同法律理論見解提出批判，主要為法律詮釋學、法律實在論、法律實證論，以及Dworkin的融貫理論，最後他提出自己所主張的程序法典範的法律觀。哈氏認為現代法制史中，運用得最成功的法律典範，是今日依然相互競爭的兩種法律典範，一是形式法的典範，另一種是實質法的典範，但哈氏認為這兩種典範都有所不足，所以主張要採取言說理論視角的第三種法律典範—程序法典範，來理解與解決二十世紀末出現的社會困境。 在現今充斥「語言暴力」、「策略性語言」、「意識型態扭曲」的社會中，言說的有效檢驗，對現況的釐清確有助益，但問題是如何進行？所以，本文嘗試從理解哈伯瑪斯的言說理論為核心，來討論法律與其同屬之社會文化間的關係。同時，藉由哈氏所提之「生活界與系統界」的概念，探求法律在社會整合中所扮演的媒介角色，探討法律的生成與溝通行動何以密不可分？最後，論證法律的正當性，主要是來自以溝通言說為基礎，所達致的同意與共識。 / Since the broke out of the special funds affair of Taipei mayor, the focus has been on highly abstract political issues; the value questions, which were profound and worth inquiring, fell into difficult position and were unable to discuss. This paper closely examines the basic question: what the meaning of the law ought to be? What significant value the law should represent? Should it be an instrument or an institution; should it be developed in a strategic or communicative way; and should it be rules and regulation laid down by the authority or the normative commitment of the citizens. Habermas thought the law obtains its legitimacy through real communication and therefore the “communicative rationality” is the foundation of the law. From the perspective of legal theory, Habermas thinks modern legal order must “be self determined” to obtain its legitimacy; moreover, the citizen should elaborate and judge the making of the law through participation and communication. Habermas thus criticizes four well-known theories of law, i.e., legal realism, legal empiricism, legal positivism and Dworkin’s coherence theory. He then asserts his own proceduralist paradigm of law. Habermas believes that in the history of modern law, the most successful legal paradigms are still in competition today – one is the paradigm of the positive law, the other is the paradigm of substantive law. However, he believes both paradigms are inadequate, so he asserts the necessity of a third legal paradigm, which emphasizes the discourse theory perspective – the proceduralist paradigm of law to understand and resolve the social difficulties. Reacting to the flooding “language violence,” “strategic language,” “ideological twisting” in the society of nowadays, effective evaluation of discourse can certainly help in clarifying the present situation, but the question is how to carry on? This article attempts to answer the question by studying the discourse theory of Habermas as the core, and discuss the relationship between law and the social culture to which it belongs. At the same time, with Habermasian concept of “the lifeworld and the system”, this paper seeks to evaluate the medium role of law in social integration to assess the reason for the intimacy between legal formation and communicative action. Finally, this paper argues that the legitimacy of law primarily comes from communicative discourse that serves as a basis to reach agreement and consensus. Keywords: mayoral special funds, Habermas, legal validity, legitimacy, communicative reason, the lifeworld and the system , legal validity theory of discourse, Proceduralist paradigm of law

我國所得稅係採年度申報自繳制度，具有大量、反覆之特性，因此稅捐稽徵機關在所得稅申報期間之前，即已進行各種課稅資訊之蒐集活動，除藉此定出各類所得、費用標準，以作為核課依據外，嗣人民申報其年度所得稅後，即將蒐集之課稅資料與申報資料互相勾稽，作為選定事後審查對象及釐正申報資料與核定所得額之依據；當年度之所得稅申報資料及核定情形復又成為次一年度之課稅基本資料來源及比較對象，二者環環相扣，互為因果關係，形成一個獨立體系，而得以單獨作為研究之對象。次為掌握稅務調查制度之全貌，必須對其作全面性之審視及檢討，故本文採用源自日本之行政法學研究方法「行政過程論」從實現稅務行政目的之過程，歸納、整理所得稅事前課稅資訊蒐集活動及事後審查階段之調查手段、程序、屬性、相關人之法律關係、調查效果及其救濟途徑，以宏觀角度檢視現行法制下之稅務調查制度，藉以發現問題並試圖提出解決方法或修法建議。 / Taiwan adopts an annual self-reporting system for income tax return. Such reporting system involves massive and recurrent information. Hence tax authorities would collect all kinds of tax information before the annual income tax reporting period and use such information to set out the norms for different types of income and expenses as basis for taxation. Upon receiving the annual income tax returns filed by taxpayers, tax officers would check the filed data against the collected tax information, and based on the results, determine the taxpayers to be audited and the assessed income tax. The information contained in an annual income tax return and the results of assessment become the source of basic tax information and comparison for following year’s return. Hence income tax returns of two successive years are interrelated and can form discrete units for research purpose. In order to grasp the full view of the tax investigation system, comprehensive examination of the system is necessary. Thus this study employs the methodology of the “theory of administrative process” originated in Japan to examine the tax investigation system under the prevailing law in a macroscopic manner, from the process of tax administration, pre-filing tax information collection, the means, procedure and attributes of post-filing investigation, legal relationship of the parties concerned, to the effect of investigation and remedies available. This study attempts to discover problems, and based on which, propose solutions or suggestions for regulatory amendment.

隨著知識經濟的發展，專利成為企業的重要資產，專利訴訟更成為企業經營管理必修顯學。專利之高度技術內容及其商業化本質，使得專利訴訟成為技巧最複雜、成本最高昂、耗費時間也最冗長的救濟程序，終而引發各界對於專利訴訟制度之反思，開始強調應循公平、合理、迅速、經濟、專業之糾紛解決程序來排解專利糾紛。美國於1982年制訂專利法第294條開放專利有效性及專利侵權爭議得由當事人自願提付仲裁，聯合國國際貿易委員會於1985年制訂國際商務仲裁模範法（UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration），作為各會員國仲裁法制之參考藍本，世界智慧財產權組織（World Intellectual Property Organization，WIPO）亦於1994年成立「仲裁與調解中心」為智慧財產案件提供專業性及跨國性之糾紛解決服務。上開仲裁立法及機構設置均顯示專利仲裁制度之發展與成長。 專利是一種權利保護期間短暫、權利範圍不明確、保護客體高度技術化，且集結科技、法律、管理三大專業於一身之權利，其糾紛解決對於迅速性、專業性、經濟性、秘密性、靈活性、和諧性、跨國性及風險控制性之需求，正係仲裁程序所能提供之優點。惟專利權與仲裁程序仍有本質上之互斥，包括：專利權之獨佔性及其背後蘊含之龐大商機，吸引專利權人寧願循訴訟途徑奮戰到底；專利糾紛當事人之實力差距，使得雙方難以達成仲裁協議；專利糾紛對於調查證據之強烈需求，與仲裁程序強調之迅速、經濟致生衝突；專利判決的不確定性，以致專利案件約有50％的上訴成功率，此亦促使當事人欲循訴訟程序爭取由上訴審法官重新審視案件，而不願意循仲裁程序「一戰定江山」。 經本文就我國企業專利糾紛循仲裁程序解決進行分析，發現有下列幾點之限制：一、我國企業客觀實力不足，主觀心態復趨於保守，導致企業之糾紛程序選擇權受到一定的限制。二、仲裁程序以當事人合意為前提，雙方就現在之爭議欲達成仲裁協議，本即有一定之難度。三、我國仲裁法未開放專利有效性糾紛之仲裁容許性，權利有效性問題仍待行政法院認定，致生程序切割及審理時程延宕之不利益。四、我國仲裁制度因仲裁人之公正、獨立性有待加強、證據法則規範不夠完整且未能落實，導致程序正義不彰，當事人對仲裁制度信賴感普遍不足。五、我國仲裁法未明文賦予仲裁人核准保全程序之權限，當事人仍須向法院聲請假扣押、假處分裁定，不但緩不濟急，法官對於應否進行保全程序及核准為何種保全措施，其掌握度亦不如仲裁人。六、我國非紐約公約簽約國，以致於我國仲裁判斷面臨難以於外國獲得承認及執行之困境。上述幾點，都是我國企業專利糾紛欲循仲裁程序解決所面臨之限制因素。 有鑑於專利仲裁於我國企業之主要活躍領域，即美國與中國，已逐步成熟發展，本文謹建議我國企業面臨專利糾紛程序選擇時，應考量糾紛之目的及類型，以決定是否適用仲裁程序。若適用之，則需作好仲裁策略規劃，對於仲裁協議、仲裁地、仲裁機構、仲裁人、仲裁程序均應為適當之安排，以爭取最有利之仲裁判斷。 本文最末則自短程及長程觀點，對我國專利仲裁之發展提出建議。短程而言，我國企業就單純的法律解釋爭議、訟爭性不高或彼此間存有持續性合作關係之專利契約，宜約定仲裁條款；就專利侵權糾紛則得透過互相退讓之方式，約定就專利有效性爭議不為爭執，或同意被告之損害賠償上限，以換取適用仲裁之空間。長程而言，於仲裁立法面，我國應於仲裁法或專利法明文開放專利糾紛之仲裁容許性、增訂仲裁程序之調查證據規範、明文立法賦予仲裁庭核准保全程序之權限；於仲裁制度面，應提升仲裁人之公正性、獨立性及自律性、加強仲裁人之專業及制訂專業之專利仲裁規則；於企業策略面，建議企業應依專利糾紛之目的及類型為適當之程序選擇，如適用仲裁程序，則應妥善配置仲裁要素，規劃出最有利之仲裁程序。 / As the knowledge-based economy rapidly grows today, patent rights has become one of the most valuable assets of corporation. Patent litigation becomes the most important commercial method to generate massive revenue in nowadays. Patents usually involve complicated technology and commercial elements and patent litigation procedure is usually complicated, time consuming and mostly very expensive. Hence, new solutions, which are more fair, reasonable, rapid, economic and professional, are proposed to replace litigations. In the U.S., the Congress approved 35 U.S.C. 294 in 1982 to regulate rules allowing dispute parties may voluntary initiate binding arbitration procedure in regard with patent validity and infringement issues. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration enacted in 1985 offered as prototype of arbitration legislation for UN members. In 1994, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center was established to offer professional and cross-broader Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) options for the resolution of intellectual property disputes between private parties. All these reforms show the development and growth of patent arbitration. Patent are characterized with limitations on period of protection, scope of claim and advanced technology. It involves with the knowledge of law, technology and commerce. Thus it will be required to deal with patent dispute with efficiency, profession, confidentiality, economic, flexibility, multi-nation and risk control when one decides which dispute resolution method to adopt, and arbitration is exactly the ADR method that satisfies all the requirements. Nevertheless, the exclusivity and the great commercial interests inherent behind patent litigation attract patentees to enforce their patent rights through courts regime. The difference in financial strength and interest leads to a difficulty for different parties to achieve an agreement. Extensive discovery procedure is almost compulsory in patent infringement litigation so that information between parties can be fully disclosed through the process. On the other hand, information disclosure is limited in arbitration proceedings. Also the parties may appeal a patent case in court, and it has an approximately 50% win rate in such attempt. All these factors decrease the parties’ intention to settle their case by arbitration. Through the case study and analysis of the Taiwan companies on patent litigation and arbitration history, it is not difficult to discover the deficiency of Taiwan’s current arbitration regime. The shortage in resource and unwillingness to take arbitral procedure restricts Taiwan companies to exercise they right to select dispute resolution procedure. Mutual consensus is the key priority for arbitration, but this could be extremely difficult to achieve on given patent dispute. Patent validity cannot be determined through the arbitration under current Taiwan Arbitration Law and needs to be determined by court, which prolongs the arbitral proceedings. Moreover, the professional ability of Taiwan’s arbitration remains in doubt, in terms of lack of fairness, independence and evidence rules, led the untrustworthiness of our arbitration regime. The arbitral tribunal has no authority to order interim measures, such as provisional seizure and preliminary injunction and Taiwan is not a signature party of New York Convention are also the factors that weaken the value of arbitration procedure in Taiwan. In comparison with the system in Taiwan, China and the U.S. patent arbitration are more systematized and are still increasing in numbers in both China and the United States. This thesis shall point out the factors for parties to consider adopting arbitration as patent dispute resolution, and assist parties to plan arbitration strategies. Lastly, this thesis will give suggestions on Taiwan’s patent arbitration regime development in both short and long terms. In short term, the public should be more aware the benefits by adopting arbitration clause in contract, when argument and disagreement might exist merely on obvious legal definition or less argument presented or when collaboration still exist between parties. This will encourage parties to agree to solve their dispute through arbitration in advance. In long term, legislators should regulate more detailed rules on arbitration procedure, evidence rules, and judicial support. Arbitration institutions should increase the training, improve the quality of arbitrators and develop more conscientious procedure rules. Corporation should have the concepts to learn and understand more about arbitration, and takes arbitration into consideration as commerce strategy in advance.

自2008年5月起，國內發生了向銀行購買號稱保本或條件式保本的結構型債券的投資人，因所購買之結構債觸及下限，導致本金大賠，而這些投資人無法承受損失，組成自救會要向銀行討回投資本金的事件；同年9月美國雷曼兄弟公司倒閉，購買連結該公司股票，或購買由該公司及其子公司發行或保證之結構債之受害投資人要求銀行全額買回不當銷售之結構債，另外投資人亦多向銀行主管機關行政院金融監督管理委員會、民意代表等提出陳情，指稱銀行在販售結構債時，並沒有善盡事前告知的義務，加上用詐欺或誘導等方式進行不當行銷勸誘，並對應告知投資人的重要事項僅為選擇性的說明，且更有理專在簽約書面文件中偽造其已告知投資人相關風險及資訊，因此造成銀行不當銷售結構債等金融商品的議題受到重視及討論。 我國傳統上面對金融商品係針對個別商品之架構（例如有價證券或期貨）而採不同的監理規範，惟此種立法係以商品得以明確定性為前提，然在財務工程技術不斷推陳出新，金融創新成為趨勢的現在，混合傳統商品所推出的新型態金融商品就應如何定性及適用法律，即為監理及投資人保護法制上的新課題。 此外，從民眾經由銀行推介而投資結構型債券而生的糾紛可發現，銀行在向民眾推介購買金融商品時，常發生糾紛的類型多可歸類為未推薦符合客戶風險屬性商品的商品適合性（suitability）不符，以及銷售時未確實對於該項商品可能產生的風險完整告知。故有關商品適合性及告知義務在我國法上的規範及內容，及對於違反商品適合性及告知義務時，受害投資人若要提起相關訴訟時，應該如何主張自身的權益，亦為本文研究的重心。 本文於第壹章提出本文研究動機及研究方法，第貳章則介紹結構型債券的種類及風險，並嘗試替結構債進行法律定性，第參章分析銀行辦理財富管理業務時，應遵守之法規範，同時介紹國內銀行受投資人委託投資結構債之規定，並附論主管機關因結構債銷售爭議事件發生，而對結構型商品所增訂的管制規範，以及我國統一管理金融服務業銷售行為規範的金融服務業法。第肆章為分析國內銀行不當銷售結構債予一般投資人之法律爭議，並介紹國外實務案例，以及國外有關違反忠實義務及注意義務的判斷標準；另從我國現行法制下檢討受到銀行不當銷售之投資人可能得主張銀行損害賠償之請求權基礎，並觀察與分析我國目前利用銀行公會評議機制處理投資人申訴之情形；第伍章介紹英國2000年金融服務暨市場法中，關於消費者遇到金融商品服務相關糾紛時得採用的申訴機制，並介紹日本金融商品販賣法及金融商品交易法中對銷售行為管制相關規定；另附論該國實務界對於金融機構不當銷售時，對投資人應負的責任，以及該國實務界調節損害賠償責任的方式；第陸章為結論及建議，將提出我國目前法制對不當銷售之問題面臨的挑戰，尤其是於金融商品交易資訊不對稱的情形下，投資人提起商品適合性與金融機構未盡告知義務訴訟時產生的難題，並提供相關建議。

No description available.

本研究之主要目的在於探討影響主管人員對於360度回饋態度以及行為改變意圖的相關因素，這些因素包括回饋預期一致性、程序公平、組織支持、個人特質（內外控及成就動機）等。 本研究樣本為國內某建築業之主管，其中初階主管23人，中階主管51人，高階主管5人，共計79位主管。研究結果發現，程序公平、組織支持、與360度回饋態度、及行為改變意圖之間皆具有顯著的正相關；內外控與360度回饋態度及行為改變意圖之間皆不具有顯著正相關；成就動機與行為改變意圖之間具有顯著正相關，但與360度回饋態度之間並不具有顯著的正相關。變異數分析結果顯示，不同回饋預期一致性的受評者，其在360度回饋態度方面有顯著差異存在，然而在行為改變意圖上卻並未有顯著差異。此外，逐步迴歸分析結果顯示，以程序公平對於360度回饋態度的解釋變異量為最高（41%），而以360度回饋態度對於行為改變意圖的變異解釋量為最高（21％）。 本研究並進一步指出研究之限制，以及後續研究可以針對影響行為改變之相關因素、與組織文化等議題進行更深入的探討；此外，對於有意推行360度回饋之企業組織，本研究亦提供多項具體實務上的建議。