民事法上之說明義務及其違反之舉證責任：以雷曼連動債紛爭為例

The Duty of Disclosure in Civil Law and The Burden of Proof for Violating the Duty:The Disputes of Lehman Brothers Structured Notes as An Example

2008年9月間雷曼（兄弟）公司之破產事件，在我國引發一連串雷曼連動債投資人主張銀行於推銷、介紹系爭金融商品時未充分告知其「不保本」之（信用）風險，請求銀行賠償損失之民事訴訟。我國最高法院乃在欠缺特別規定的情況下，自2011年以來數次對於以下問題表示見解：應否基於何種民事法理，承認銀行於推介連動債時之（風險）說明義務？若然，其法律基礎及其具體事項範圍、程度、方法為何？又是否應由投資人證明「違反說明義務」事實，而非由銀行就「已履行說明義務」事實負舉證責任？另一方面，同樣肇因於2008年之金融風暴，我國於2011年完成金融消費者保護法之立法，該法第10條、第11條並課予金融服務業者法定說明義務及其違反之無過失損害賠償責任；此事導致下列疑問：該法賦予金融消費者之請求權基礎與一般民事法所定者間之關係為何？兩者之內容是否有何差異？金融消保法又如何分配「說明義務履行與否」事實之舉證責任？以上述我國最高法院之裁判與金融消費者保護法之制訂為契機，本文嘗試從雷曼連動債紛爭所代表之交易類型出發，針對「說明義務」概念建構一個涵蓋民法、金融消費者保護法及民事訴訟法之釋義學體系。

That Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. declaring bankruptcy in September 2008 engendered in Taiwan a series of civil litigations in which investors contended the banks, serving as brokerage firms, failed to fully inform investors of “Non-Principal Protected” credit risk when selling and introducing the financial instruments and claimed compensation. Absent specific regulations, the Taiwanese Supreme Court has been making statements several times from 2011 regarding the issues below: Whether and based on what civil jurisprudence should we impose the duty of disclosure on banks concerning the risks when selling structured notes? If so, what is the legal basis of the duty? What information needs to be disclosed? To what degree and by what means should the duty be carried out? Whether the investors should prove the banks breached the duty of disclosure or the burden should be on the banks to prove they fulfilled the duty? On the other hand, owing to the 2008 financial crisis likewise, Taiwan enacted the Financial Consumer Protection Act in 2011 in which Article 10 and 11 impose upon financial services enterprises the statutory duty of disclosure and the strict liability for damages for violating the duty. Such regulations raise the issues below: What is the relationship between the claims in the Financial Consumer Protection Act and the ones in the general Civil Law? Is there any difference concerning the contents? How does the Financial Consumer Protection Act allocate the burden of proof regarding the breach of the duty? On the basis of the Supreme Court cases and the enactment of the Financial Consumer Protection Act and setting out from the representative transactions of Lehman Brothers structured notes disputes, this article endeavors to structure a dogmatic system pertinent to the duty of disclosure which encompasses the Civil Law, the Financial Consumer Protection Act, and the Code of Civil Procedure.