民法成年年齡下修後「年輕消費者」之保護課題與省思

Protecting the Young Consumer after the 2020 Revision Lowering the Age of Majority in the Taiwanese Civil Code

2023年1月1日起我國民法成年年齡成為十八歲，自此十八至十九歲的年輕成人不再受行為能力之保護。然而，甫出「新手村」的年輕成人，容易因為人生「經驗值」的不足而成為他人的獵物。一旦誤入陷阱，可能讓本應光明璀璨的人生，在最初階段就籠罩上濃濃陰影。
我國民法成年年齡的立法及本次修正受到日本不少影響。但2018年日本民法下修成年年齡時，因意識到年輕消費者之脆弱性而就消費者契約法配套修正。作為其修正法理的，乃是以行為主體特性及行銷手段反社會性作為判斷基準，由日本民法公序良俗規定所發展出之「現代暴利行為」。儘管其在債權法修正時並未受到明文化，但與保護年輕消費者之議題匯流後，對消費者契約法之修正產生重要影響。
本文將分析日本現代暴利行為之形成經緯及規範內容，再與我
國法院之觀點進行比較，省思未來藉此保護年輕消費者之可能性。

Since January 1, 2023, individuals aged 18 and 19 in Taiwan have been recognized as adults with full capacity for civil contracts. This change followed the 2020 Revision of the Civil Code by the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan’s congress, which aimed to grant young adults (adults aged 18 and 19) more freedom in making decisions without parental consent. However, the Civil Code historically limited minors’ability to engage in contracts, not to restrict their freedom, but to protect them from potentially dangerous contracts or inappropriate solicitations.
The concept of the Age of Majority in the Taiwanese Civil Code dates back to 1929 and was influenced by Japanese and Switzerland Civil Laws. In 2018, Japan reduced its age of majority from 20 to 18, prompting the Legislative Yuan to note this change as a reason for Taiwan’s revision. Despite this, Japan also revised its Consumer Contract Act in 2018 to better protect young consumers. In contrast, while Taiwan lowered the age of majority, it did not implement measures to mitigate the potential risks faced by young consumers entering university or starting their careers post-2020 revision.
This paper aims to explore how the Civil Code can protect young consumers. It traces the historical development of the“usury”conception in Japan and the“modern usury”theory, discusses revisions to Japanese civil contract law, and considers the alignment between modern usury theory and protections for young consumers in the 2018 Consumer Contract Act revision. Finally, this paper revisits Taiwanese court cases and notes instances where Articles 72 and 74 were cited to protect vulnerable or young consumers. Based on this analysis, the paper advocates for a more positive approach to interpreting Articles 72 and 74 in future cases.