論單軌階段式之消費者債務清理程序設計─有限度更生程序前置之提出;BUILD A UNILATERAL, PHASED FRAMEWORK ON CONSUMER DEBT CLEARANCE PROCEEDING IN TAIWAN: PRE-PROCEDURE FOR CONDITIONAL PERSONAL REORGANIZATION.

NCUIR > School of Management at National Central University > Graduate Institute of Industrial Economics > Electronic Thesis & Dissertation > Item 987654321/69213

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/69213

Title:	論單軌階段式之消費者債務清理程序設計─有限度更生程序前置之提出;BUILD A UNILATERAL, PHASED FRAMEWORK ON CONSUMER DEBT CLEARANCE PROCEEDING IN TAIWAN: PRE-PROCEDURE FOR CONDITIONAL PERSONAL REORGANIZATION.
Authors:	胡依樂;Hu,I-Leh
Contributors:	產業經濟研究所
Keywords:	消費者債務清理條例;更生程序前置;前置協商程序;前置調解程序;破產和解主義;單軌階段式之債務清理程序;個人債務清理;Consumer Debt Clearance Act in Taiwan;conditional personal reorganization;negotiation;mediation;bankruptcy conciliation;unilateral, phased framework on consumer debt clearance proceeding;personal debt clearance
Date:	2015-10-05
Issue Date:	2015-11-04 17:47:40 (UTC+8)
Publisher:	國立中央大學
Abstract:	我國之《消費者債務清理條例》於2008年因應雙卡風暴制定至今，前後歷經四次的修正，逐步對個人之債務清理程序進行建構，然仔細觀之，卻仍可發現該法規尚存有許多適用上之疑義。和先進破產法制發展之國家相比，我國之現行規定已逐漸顯露出問題。本文點出《消費者債務清理條例》兩點程序設計上之疑慮，首先針對我國之所獨創之「前置協商與調解程序」進行適用上之探討，接著重新評估給予債務人自由選擇「更生程序」或「清算程序」進行債務清理之權利是否合適。本文作者主張應廢除我國所特有之前置協商程序部分，僅保留前置調解程序，藉由公正第三人的介入，保障裁判外債務清理機制之公平性，透過雙方當事人的協力以達債務清理之合意，並減輕法院的負擔，締造訴訟經濟與效率。其次，本文提出「單軌階段式之債務清理程序」之構想，主張將現行《消費者債務清理條例》之清算或更生雙軌並行制度，改由先進行「有限度之更生程序前置」，聲請進入法院之案件唯有在符合法律規範之特定條件之下，方能由法院將之從更生程序轉換至清算程序適用，藉此以避免惡意利用清算程序之情形產生，促使債務人於法院之監督下盡力清償其債務，保障債權人的基本受償權利。建立出「單軌階段式之債務清理程序」，由裁判外的強制調解程序、進入法院後的有限度更生前置、透過法院職權轉換的清算程序，層層過濾消費債務案件的適用，衡平債權債務關係兩造之權益，並收程序便捷之效。;In 2008, Taiwan has regulated the “Consumer Debt Clearance Act”. This law was legislated for consumers who were mired in difficulties of credit cards. Compare to the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005" in the U.S.A., the personal debtors have the freedom of choosing procedures in Taiwan, they can choose procedures of liquidation or personal reorganization to clean up their debts. Besides, this act has created a unique procedure called negotiation, which have to enforce before bankruptcy petition. I am concerned about the effect of negotiation. On unequal position to negotiate, could the debtors achieve better plan to pay back their debts? Or is this mandatory procedure just make them get worse? And, leave debtors the right to choose either procedure might let them intent to abandon their duties by choosing liquidation. Actually, our present legal framework is not enough to help both parties reach the best solution. In order to resolve those issues, the results of my thesis are: First, abolishing the negotiation procedure, keeping the mediation to be the only procedure of debt clearance before going into the court. By the judge or the Mediation Committee to preside mediation can prevent unequal negotiation. Second, transforming the duality procedures, liquidation and personal reorganization, to the unilateral, phased proceeding. Debtors should only petition personal reorganization to pay back their debts. They could choose liquidation on court’s call unless the situation is in accordance with some special conditions. Build the pre-procedure for conditional personal reorganization could avoid debtors abandoning their debts.
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Industrial Economics] Electronic Thesis & Dissertation

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	591	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...