京都大学 / 新制・論文博士 / 博士(農学) / 乙第13410号 / 論農博第2893号 / 新制||農||1085(附属図書館) / 学位論文||R3||N5320(農学部図書室) / (主査)教授 藤井 義久, 教授 吉村 剛, 教授 高妻 洋成 / 学位規則第4条第2項該当 / Doctor of Agricultural Science / Kyoto University / DFAM

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.

我國經濟犯罪之範圍，係由司法機關(司法院)與行政機關(法務部) 分別以作業性之行政規則頒訂，仍以侵害個人財產法益之金融犯罪為 規範對象。 就經濟犯罪所得，由於其性質屬於準不當得利之衡平措施，自應予以 追繳或抵償(再發還被害人或充公收歸國有)以修復正義，該行為只要 與法規範對立矛盾(即具有不法構成要件該當之違法性)即足，無庸探 究行為人之罪責要件。我國將犯罪所得規定為從刑，須待行為人(即 被告)受有罪科刑判決方能併宣告沒收，緩不濟急。 建議將犯罪所得追繳後發還被害人之個別法律，移置於刑法總則一體 適用，定性為強制處分，並將沒收、追繳、追徵或抵償自從刑之規定 刪除，另於刑事訴訟法宣示判決之條文增加發還被害人或得請求損害 賠償之人，且得由法院依職權或依檢察官之聲請權單獨宣告。 我國附帶民事訴訟受請求之被告，不限於刑事訴訟進行中之被告，尚包括「其他依民法應負賠償責任之人」，刑事庭法官遇有此種情形，因對渠等並無確定刑罰權有無及範圍之權限，在刑事訴訟程序的操作上格格不入，有仿襲德國刑事訴訟法第403條規定，被請求人應以刑事被告為限。 由於附帶民事訴訟規範之目的在避免雙重工作負擔及二次裁判，惟依 現行刑事訴訟法之規定，法官除刑事判決外，另需製作一份民事訴訟 判決，如此顯違反前揭附帶民事訴訟規範之目的；故正本清源之道， 乃無庸另製作一份附帶民事訴訟之判決，就犯罪不法利得，逕於刑事 判決主文中諭知發還被害人或給付若干金額予被害人。 被害人與加害人間共同參與之修復式司法近年來在世界各國實務及 學說均肯定其實踐層面之重要性，為具體落實憲法訴訟權應保障犯罪 被害人公平且有效的權利救濟途徑及程序主體性之地位，本文建議在 審理刑事案件之前階段即擴大強制調解及和解制度之運用，由被告及 被害人共同參與決定採取何種途徑最有利於促成實質修復正義之結 果，俾利被害人程序主體性之建立及擴大紛爭解決一次性之要求。 / Economic crime in Taiwan is defined by the administrative regulations of the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice, respectively. Such regulations are aimed at financial crimes that damage personal property. Because the proceeds of economic crimes are “quasi-kondiktionelle Ausgleichsmaßnahme”, the courts should seize the profits, and then use them to either compensate victims or confiscate them in the name of serving justice. So long as this offense is contradictory to criminal law (i.e. constituting the penal code and finding no specific legal cause for that offense), the courts need not review the problem of offender's guilt. As ill-gotten gains are stipulated as “Nebenstrafe” in the Taiwan penal code, the courts cannot confiscate those gains unless there is a simultaneous conviction, which seems too slow. The following suggestions are presented. The individual laws regulating “Verfall” and compensation to the victims should be reorganized in the penal code and characterized as “maßnahme”. The legal effect of these laws as “Nebenstrafe” should be deleted. The articles relating to the compensation of criminal proceeds to the victims should be increased as well. In addition, the courts should be allowed to announce verdicts either alone by its authority or according to the prosecutor’s request. In Taiwan, defendants accused during the adhesion process are not limited to being defendants in the process of criminal litigation, but also include other persons who should bear damages in accordance with civil law. When criminal court judges face this situation, since it is not certain whether there is a right to impose criminal punishment, or what the scope of punishment should be, there are inconsistencies in the operations of the criminal litigation procedure. There have been attempts to imitate Germany’s Criminal Litigation Law Clause 403, in which the accused should be limited to criminal defendants. The purpose of the rules on the adhesion process is to prevent a double workload and multiple judgments. However, according to existing requirements for criminal litigation, in addition to criminal judgments, judges must also make civil litigation judgments. This violates the aforementioned purpose of adhesion process rules. Thus, the way to rectify this situation is to create another adhesion process judgment based on the proceeds of crime, in order to assign restitution or to pay a certain amount to the victim, inside the main text of the criminal judgment. Restorative justice, in which the victim and offender jointly participate, has recently been affirmed in its importance, both in theory and in practice, all over the world. In order to concretely realize the principle that constitutional litigation rights should protect crime victims, as well as provide fair and effective remedial paths and procedural subjectivity, this study suggested that in the stage prior to judging criminal cases, there should be expanded use of enforced arbitration and mediation systems, in which the defendant and the victim jointly participate, in order to determine the best course for promoting restorative justice, to satisfy the demand for victim procedural subjectivity, and to expand the one-time character of dispute resolutions.

科学研究費補助金 研究種目:基盤研究(B)(2) 課題番号:11555149 研究代表者:都市域の総合的地震被災ポテンシャルの定量化に基づく地域防災カルテの作成 研究期間:1999-2001年度

全民健康保險法自民國83年8月9日公告並自民國84年3月1日施行，此一社會保險制度迄今已成為我國醫療保健系統重要支幹，然而，醫療費用每年約上漲8~10%，致使民國87年3月開始，財務已有入不敷出的情形，因此中央健康保險局（保險人）有一連串開源節流的政策 民國94年2月25日全民健康保險監理委員會第117次會議，委員發言多傾向支持擴大代位求償範圍。此外，全民健保公民共識會議之與會人員，一致認為保險事故如果係可明確歸責於第三人之事由所導致，全民健保之保險人於給付後，應該向第三人代位求償，以符公平正義原則，立法院爰於民國94年5月18日修正全民健康保險法第82條，增訂公共安全事故及重大之交通事故、公害或食品中毒事件為代位求償範圍，修正後條文為：「保險對象因發生保險事故，而對第三人有損害賠償請求權者，本保險之保險人於提供保險給付後，得依下列規定，代位行使損害賠償請求權： 一、汽車交通事故：向強制汽車責任保險保險人請求。 二、公共安全事故：向第三人依法規應強制投保之責任保險保險人請求。 三、其他重大之交通事故、公害或食品中毒事件：第三人已投保責任保險 者，向其保險人請求；未投保者，向第三人請求。 前項第三款所定重大交通事故、公害及食品中毒事件之求償範圍、方式及 程序等事項之辦法，由主管機關定之。」 修法之後，雖然擴大了健保局代位求償範圍，但限制仍多，且此次修法亦未明確釐清健保局在其他領域是否亦有代位求償權 本文首先敘述我國自民國84年正式實施全民健康保險時，尚有盈餘，然而自民國87年起首見保險支出超過保險收入，至民國96年時差額更高達新台幣136億元，除了繼續開發新財源與減少支出外，有無可能利用現有的制度切實實施，消除多數國民有「中央健康保險局將全國人民當成提款機的看法」，以及使實現加害者負其責任之公平正義，故本文針對於全民健康保險法第82條第1項第2款中中央健康保險局對公共安全事故強制投保之責任保險保險人代位權之相關問題加以探討，希望對於日益惡化瀕於破產邊緣之財務有所助益，接者大略簡介我國社會保險制度的演進，包括勞工保險、公務人員保險及其相關保險、退休公務人員保險、公務人員眷屬疾病保險、退休公務人員疾病保險、退休公務人員配偶疾病保險、私立學校教職員保險及其相關保險、農民健康保險與全民健康保險之演進與概況，之後於第三章再藉由歐、美等主要國家保險理論探討保險代位求償權之理論基礎以及人身保險適用代位求償權之理由，復接者討論保險代位求償權之性質、民法上行使代位權之限制、保險法上保險人代位權之性質與全民健康保險保險人之代位求償權；於第四章則討論目前我國中央與地方法規中有哪些場所或行業係屬須強制投保公共意外責任保險以及公共安全事故中全民健康保險保險人代位求償權之構成要件；於第五章則討論全民健康保險保險人可代位求償之金額尚須受到中央健康保險局實際所支出之醫療給付與強制責任保險之保險金額限制；於第六章則討論保險對象對於中央健康保險局代位求償權之保全有協助義務以及節妨礙代位之事由與代位求償權之消滅時效；第七章則是探討中央健康保險局行使代位求償權應注意事項；最後於第八章則是結論與建議。