法律學院: 法律學研究所指導教授: 陳忠五鄭人豪Cheng, Jen-HaoJen-HaoCheng2017-03-032018-07-052017-03-032018-07-052016http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/273357廣告，為現代消費社會中傳達及取得商品、服務資訊的重要管道。然而，由於廣告的內容取決於發佈廣告之企業經營者，導致廣告的內容因為企業經營者自利的心態，而有告知不實資訊及隱匿交易上重要事項的情況發生。對於積極提供不實資訊，其行為具有不法，對此行為的規制上具有正當性。然而，在企業經營者隱匿交易上重要事項時，其行為是否不法，應視企業經營者有無告知說明義務而論。因此，於廣告時，法律政策上，是否應課予企業經營者告知說明義務使企業經營者負擔一定的法律責任，即值得檢討。 對於告知說明義務，涉及到三個層面的問題。第一，企業經營者於廣告時，就交易上之重要事項是否負有告知說明義務？法律依據何在？第二，如果企業經營者負有告知說明義務，則其義務的發生要件及義務主體為何？第三，企業經營者如果違反告知說明義務，則所生的法律責任為何？對於這些問題，本文分成三部分討論。 一、首先，企業經營者是否負有告知說明義務？並且法律依據何在？對此，本文認為「信賴保護原則」中「規範上的信賴關係」可以作為課予告知說明義務的理論基礎。並且，隨著相對人期待告知說明的程度愈高，義務人所負擔的告知說明義務就愈重。基此，由於企業經營者在交易上具有專業、資本、資訊蒐集能力等優勢地位，在交易上應負有更高且更嚴格的告知說明義務。在具體的法律依據上，本文認為，公平交易法第21條及消費者保護法第22條第1項前段，皆得作為企業經營者負有告知說明義務的法律依據。但是，由於二者立法目的的不同，消費者欲請求救濟，仍應以消費者保護法第22條第1項前段為主張的法律依據。 二、次者，企業經營者負有告知說明義務的發生要件及義務主體為何？比較法上，日本於西元2000年增訂了消費者契約法，其中將企業經營者於契約締結前負有告知說明義務，予以明文規定，因此，就告知說明義務的發生要件而言，消費者契約法可提供我國法參考。此外，告知說明義務的發生要件，於我國法上亦有學說討論。因此，本文以日本法及我國法為參考依據，試圖建立消費關係下，企業經營者於廣告時所負告知說明義務之發生要件。 再來，消費者保護法第22條第1項前段之義務主體為何？對此，行政機關與學說見解並不一致。本文認為，消費者保護法之企業經營者，不限於「產銷階段」之企業經營者，應涵蓋參與消費資訊之媒體經營者及廣告代理業者。然而，即使如此，消費者保護法第22條的義務主體，並非指所有的企業經營者，而應以「決定或使用廣告」之企業經營者為限。如僅為輔助刊登廣告之媒體或代理設計、製作廣告者，對於廣告無決定權限，則不屬消費者保護法第22條之企業經營者。 三、最後，違反告知說明義務的法律責任為何？由於違反告知說明義務所造成的損害，常常影響消費者契約締結與否之意思表示，以致締結不利益契約。因此，違反告知說明義務，應就詐欺責任的成立與否加以討論。此外，由於消費者保護法第22條第1項前段，性質上為法定義務，違反該義務之行為，可能構成締約上過失及侵權行為之法律責任。In the modern society, advertising serves as an important way for us to get product and service information. However, the emergence of false advertising may be attributed to the obscurity of important information by business enterprises, who has the right to determine the content of advertisements. Providing false advertising is for sure prohibited, but the illegality of obscuring certain important information depends on the violation of the “obligation of disclosure”. Therefore, whether business enterprises shall be obliged to disclose information is critical in the light of the legal policy. When it comes to the obligation of disclosure, three-stage questions are involved: First, whether business enterprises have to disclose certain important information in transactions when publishing the advertisements? Second, if the answer of the first question is “yes”, then under what conditions shall business enterprises disclose such information? Third, what kinds of legal responsibilities shall business enterprises have, when they breach the obligation of disclosure? To answer the first question, this research considers the “turst theory” to be applied as the basis of the obligation of disclosure. To elaborate, business enterprises shall bear the higher obligation in conformity with the rising degree of mutual trust between the consumers and them. It is because business enterprises possess more professional knowledge, more financial capabilities, and even stronger information-gathering abilities. In addition, this research further suggests that the obligation of disclosure may be derived from Article 22 of the Consumer Protection Law and Article 21 of the Fair Trade Act. However, it shall be noted that, judicial remedies for consumers may be only based on the Consumer Protection Law. In comparison with the Consumer Contract Act 2000 of Japan, the obligation of disclosure is found expressly provided. Therefore, such legal practice may be taken into consideration when applying our domestic law. Still, there are already quantity of discussions among scholars on this issue. As a result, this research tries to establish the legal elements of the obligation of disclosure, based on the Consumer Contract Act 2000 and scholars’ perspectives. There are divided opinions between scholars and administrative agencies on deciding who shall bear the obligation of disclosure. This research suggests that the definition of “business enterprises” in the Consumer Protection Law shall be interpreted including even media press as well as advertising agent, however limited to those “determine or make use of ” the advertisements. Finally, this research considers a “fraudulent act” when business enterprises breach the obligation of disclosure, since consumers are more likely to sign an unfair contract under such conditions. Moreover, a violation of Article 22 of the Consumer Protection Law may even constitute the “culpa in contrahendo” or the tort liability.4242039 bytesapplication/pdf論文公開時間: 2018/4/28論文使用權限: 同意有償授權(權利金給回饋學校)廣告不實信賴保護原則告知說明義務資訊揭露義務企業經營者公平交易法消費者保護法false advertisingturst theoryobligation of disclosurebusiness enterprisesConsumer Protection LawFair Trade Actthesis10.6342/NTU201600201http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/273357/1/ntu-105-R01a21042-1.pdf