事業採行贈品贈獎促銷活動時其動機除追求利潤極大化外，無外乎是要自市場競爭對手吸引交易相對人與其交易；若事業所提供之贈品或贈獎之價值過高，意圖藉此將競爭者逐出市場，或者是阻礙潛在競爭者進入市場，係屬於「顯失公平」之不公平競爭行為，應受公平交易法之規範，且由於贈品贈獎最主要之經濟性質為減價以促銷原產品，當贈品贈獎之價值過高時，此時提供贈品贈獎之事業就有可能涉及不公平競爭。 本研究論文以我國公平交易法對事業採行贈品贈獎促銷行為規範為出發，就104年修法前之案例探討及修法後之新發展，分別作案例分析及事業對新法條的看法調查。案例分析的部分，以個別案例事實、公平委員會處分理由進行評析；在事業對新法條的看法調查上，則採用實證研究，以問卷調查方式，收集整理受訪者意見，並就所得數據進行統計分析、檢定，所得結論與建議，期能提供後續研究者及公平委員會未來制定相關法條、辦法之參考。 / The intention to conduct the promotion of gift-away (gifts) and/or awards (prizes) is mainly to maximize the profits for the enterprises. In addition, it is also in the consideration where to solicit the customers to deal the business transactions from the competitors. The enterprise provides promotional gift and/or prizes of which the values are extremely high, and its initiative in origin is to kick-out the competitor from the market, or prevent any new marketers’ entries. These behaviors are so called “unfair” and shall be governed by the Fair Trade Act. In addition, the objectives of conducting gifts and/or prizes promotions are mainly to promote the sales by discounting the selling prices under the economics essential. Once the value of the gifts and/or prizes is extremely high, it would be potentially involve of the unfair competition. This study is made in accordance with Fair Trade Act in the area of enterprise’s campaigns of promotional gifts and/or prizes. It covers both cases studies of Business Guidance as issued by Fair Trade Commission in before 2015 and new development immediately after the amendments promulgated on February 4, 2015. As for cases study, it was done by analyzing the case facts, Business Guidance as issued by the Fair Trade Commission. As for the enterprises’ view on the new development of the amendments, this study adopt a survey solicited the feed backs for analysis. Based on the survey results, the report ended with conclusions and suggestions where could give some ideas for further studies as well as helps Fair Trade commission to proceed new amendments in the near future.

專門職業人員資格之取得，依憲法規定必須經過依法考銓之程序，此等對人民營業自由所設之規範，目的固在維護人民生命、身體及財產安全，為增進公共利益所必要，但也因此造成專門職業服務市場之參進障礙，形成供給面之限制。再者，由於專門職業服務具有資訊不對稱之特性，造成市場失靈現象，使得該市場中存有管制之必要性。然管制有其功效、亦有弊病，最明顯者是阻礙創新與進步。因此於管制的運用及競爭法之介入二者間，有必要尋求一適用之界線。 於外國實務上，如美國，歐盟和日本等，競爭法是否適用於專門職業已無疑義。除了在特殊情況下（如美國的州政府行為豁免原則）可能豁免競爭法之適用外，並不能僅因行為涉及專門職業即認為不適用競爭法。雖專門職業服務業與一般商業服務在性質上有所不同，惟此僅意味著在專門職業服務市場中之競爭狀況可能有所不同，故應以合理原則，於個案中具體考量產業特性、市場結構、行為效果等因素，始能作出是否違法之判斷結論。 99年開始我國公平交易法適用於專門職業服務業之問題開始發生爭議，短短5年內即可見行政法院之見解有明顯變化，而公平交易委員會歷經數案爭訟過程後，亦開始省思及加強如何論述其認定違法之依據，以尋求行政救濟機關之支持。本文即針對專門職業服務業於公平交易法上之適用關係與規範問題，進行深入之探討，並期能藉由法律與經濟等不同角度之觀察與分析，對未來公平交易法就此議題之具體適用方法，提出建議供參。 / Professionals are required to be registered through examination under the Constitution. Although such requirement is considered necessary to enhance public interests and to ensure the safety of the people and their properties, it also results in the barrier of entry into relevant market. Simultaneously, professional regulation is often addressed to a perceived “market failure” in the market for professional services due to its characteristics of information symmetry. Regulation of professional services can protect vulnerable consumers, but it can also prevent innovation and other competition. The conflict between regulation and free competition therefore exists and the boundary should have to be found. In US, EU and Japan, whether the competition law should apply to the professionals is no longer a question. Although professional services by their nature may differ significantly from other business services, that only means the nature of the competition in such services may vary and should be judged by the Rule of Reason under the competition law. Only in very specific situations (such as the “state action doctrine” in US) would there be an exemption. Similar discussion occurred in Taiwan since 2010, and just during 5 years could we see the obvious change of opinions expressed by Administrative Courts. Taiwan Fair Trade Commission faced numerous challenges through the petitioning procedure in cases related to professionals, and tried hard to strengthen the economical analysis in late cases. This study discusses the related issues of professional service under the Fair Trade Act through legal and economic analysis, and try to make recommendations on handling relevant cases.

他國低估匯率造成貿易嚴重扭曲問題近年來越發受到重視，而美國國會為解決主要貿易對手國長期壓抑匯率以提升出口競爭力，導致美國貿易赤字不斷上升之問題，遂陸續提出諸多匯率改革相關法案，期望以具體之制裁手段防止他國持續刻意壓低匯率。 本文先以美國現行法案──1988年匯率與國際經濟政策協調法案作為出發點，探討美國現行法案之不足，以點出美國國會為何認為有於後續改革法案中加入制裁手段之必要，並得出2010年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與2011年貨幣匯率監督改革法案此二法案所提倡之將他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形視為可課徵平衡稅之補貼，為國會多數支持之手段。再以經濟學及國際貿易法學之分析連貫後續討論：匯率低估是否等同對進口課徵關稅並對出口提供補貼？2010年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與2011年貨幣匯率監督改革法案欲將他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形視為可課徵平衡稅之補貼，是否符合WTO有關補貼之規範？前者以Staiger及Sykes兩位學者使用之兩國兩財模型作為討論主軸，後者則以補貼三要件──「財務補助」、「受有利益」及「特定性」加以檢驗。最後皆得出匯率低估僅在特定之情況下始可能構成補貼之結論。 惟在研究過程中，本文發現若僅單憑國際貿易法學之角度去解析匯率低估是否構成補貼，將受法律文字之主觀影響而導致某些謬誤產生。為解決此一問題，本文乃提出以經濟學之分析輔佐國際貿易法裁決之建議，以期能提升國際貿易法裁決之客觀性與公平性。 / The serious trade distortion problem caused by currency undervaluation has given rise to more and more attention. The United States also faces the increasing trade deficit problem caused by some major trading partners that manipulate the value of their currencies in relation to the United States dollar to gain export competitive advantage. The U.S. Congress thus brings up many currency exchange rate reform acts, hoping to use the specific sanction policies to prevent other countries from intentionally depressing exchange rates consistently. This article starts from the U.S. currency act in force──Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 to discover the insufficiency in order to point out why the U.S. Congress consider it necessary to put the sanction policies in follow-up currency reform acts. We then conclude that the policies that brought up by "Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act (2010)" and "Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011" to deem the "fundamentally undervalued currency" or "misaligned currency" as contervailable subsidies come out in favor of the majority of the U.S. Congress. Follow up we use the analysis of the economies and international trade laws to link the following discussion: is the currency undervaluation equals to import tariffs and export subsidies? Are the policies that deem the "fundamentally undervalued currency" or "misaligned currency" as contervailable subsidies consistent with the WTO’s subsidy regulations? The former one is discussed with the "two countries and two goods model" brought up by Staiger and Sykes while the latter one is examined by three elements: "financial contribution", "benefits" and "specific". The answers are both that the currency undervaluation will be contervailable subsidy in some very specific cases. However, during this research, we find out that if just use the view of international trade laws to analyze whether the currency undervaluation is a contervailable subsidy, we may be affected by the literalism and make mistakes. To solve this problem, we recommend that using the analysis of economies to support the ruling of international trade laws, hoping to increase the objectivity and fairness.