強制汽車責任保險有無金融消費者保護法第20條公平合理原則之適用？兼論財團法人金融消費評議中心105年評字第138號評議書

105年評字第138號評議要旨為死亡雖非系爭交通事故直接所致，為兩者間仍具部分因果關係存在，依金融消費者保護法第20條所揭櫫公平合理原則，就該案情狀保險公司應部分給付死亡給付，與強制汽車責任保險法中，依第27條第2項授權所定強制汽車責任保險給付標準採定額給付之大相逕庭。本文認為，其中關鍵在公平合理原則定性，該評議決定認為公平合理原則係可創造新法源權利之帝王條款。本文則從強保法與金保法性質出發，觀察我國與英國法制相異之處，認為公平合理原則在我國法制上應作為法理適用較為妥適，並說明公平合理原則目的在調適金融消費者在訂定契約過程中，可能因締約地位不平等造成法律上的不利益，因之強保法在締約上並無保護金融消費者之必要。以保護消費者（或被害者）之名，創設強保法原本沒有新的權利義務，顯係法律概念之不當聯結，或有評議恣意之嫌。 The decision of (2016) PingZi No. 138 provides, in essence, that ''notwithstanding the death was not caused directly by the disputed traffic accident, some causal links existed between both incidents. In accordance with the fair and reasonable principle set forth in Article 20 of Financial Consumer Protection Act, the insurance company is required to pay a portion of the insurance payment for death to the beneficiary in that case. The foregoing payment is completely different from the ''Fixed Payment'' as adopted by ''Payment Standards of the Compulsory Automobiles Liability Insurance'' authorized under Article 27, paragraph 2, Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act. This article holds that the critical issue is the construction of ''fair and reasonable principle''. Said decision holds that ''fair and reasonable principle'' be an ''imperial clause which is able to create new legal rights''. Commencing from the nature of ''Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act'' and “Financial Consumer Protection Act” by comparison of both legal systems of UK and Taiwan, this article holds that it is advisable to apply ''fair and reasonable principle'' as ''legal principle'' under Taiwan legal system. This article further argues that ''fair and reasonable principle'' aims to adjust the legal disadvantage of financial consumers in the course of concluding contracts due to inequality of the negotiation power. Therefore, it is not necessary to protect financial consumers in course of negotiating contracts under ''Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act''. Creating new rights and obligations not stipulated under ''Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act'' by the name of protection of the consumer (or victim), said decision seems to be somewhat arbitrary for apparently improper connections of legal concepts.