消保法第51條「損害額」之範圍──評最高法院民事大法庭108年度台上大字第2680號裁定

The extent of the damages under Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act—Commenting on 108-No.2680 Ruling (2021) of the Civil Grand Court the Supreme Court

關於消費者保護法第51條之損害額範圍是否包括非財產上損害一事，於司法判決上或學者見解間已爭論許久。2021年初，最高法院的民事大法庭為此進行言詞辯論，並以108年台上大字第2680號裁定作出統一見解，自此之後紛爭不再。觀諸此一爭議，主要事涉「非財產損害有無制裁或預防之目的」，及「納入計算後是否將對企業經營者產生雙重處罰」等問題。對此，本文認為在民事大法庭第2680號的裁定理由下尚有可補強之處，故即以美國法上懲罰性賠償金制度的規範重點及實踐經驗為師，並基於我國法制現況及立法趨勢，再次對此一爭議問題提出論述，以期作為日後修法時的參考文本。

"Whether the scope of damages in Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Law includes non-property damage has been debated for a long time, either in judicial decisions or among scholars. In early 2021, the Civil Grand Court of the Supreme Court held oral debate for this argument, and in 108-No.2680 Ruling (2021) to make a unified opinion, and since then, the dispute has ceased. In view of this dispute, the main issues are ''whether there are sanctions or preventive purposes for non-property damage'', and ''whether the inclusion of the calculation will result in double punishment for business operators''. In this regard, this article believes that there are still points that can be reinforced under the reasons of the 108-No.2680 Civil Ruling, so it takes the normative emphasis and practical experience of the punitive damages system in American law as the teacher, and based on the current situation and legislative trends of our legal system, once again discusses this controversial issue, hoping to serve as a reference text when revising the law in the future."