查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 預付型支付工具監理規範之檢討--以日本支付服務法為比較中心=Review on Advance Payment Methods Supervision Regulations: Compared with Payment Services Act in Japan |
---|---|
作者 | 李旻諺; | 書刊名 | 輔仁法學 |
卷期 | 66 2023.12[民112.12] |
頁次 | 頁231-306 |
分類號 | 563.146 |
關鍵詞 | 日本支付服務法; 預付型支付工具; 單用途; 多用途; 支付服務; 監理目標; 酌情監理原則; Payment Services Act in Japan; Advance payment methods; Single-purpose; Multi-purpose; Payment service; Supervision goal; Proportionate approach; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 我國依使用對象與發行人是否屬於同一商業體系,將預付型支付工具區分為單用途或多用途,採雙軌制規範方式。前者透過主管機關擬定定型化契約應記載不得記載事項,介入當事人間契約關係;後者因發行人提供支付服務,屬金融服務之一環,因有造成金融服務風險之可能,透過電子支付機構管理條例對發行人進行監督管理。日本依使用對象與發行人是否具密接關係,將預付型支付工具區分為自家型與第三人型,統一透過支付服務法,依其風險程度進行差異化監督管理,屬單軌制的規範方式。我國與日本雖對預付型支付工具的分類用語不同,但實質上皆依使用對象是否限於發行人作為分類標準,故於我國是否屬同一商業體系,得借鏡日本支付服務法對發行人與使用對象間是否具密接關係之認定標準。在相同分類下,規範方式卻有單軌制與雙軌制之差異,何者較為恰當?本文將從支付服務之概念確認監理界線。此外,我國電子支付機構管理條例與日本支付服務法皆屬支付監理規範,除了從虛實整合之角度觀察,具有相同的立法沿革外,尚具有相同的監理目標。然而,在立法結構、准入規定與款項保全規範上卻存在差異性。本文從酌情監理原則及尋求監理目標平衡之角度,進行比較法上的研究,分析具體監理規範之妥適性。 |
英文摘要 | In Taiwan, the advance payment methods adopt a double-track system and are classified into single-purpose or multi-purpose by whether the user and issuer are under the same business system. The former involves in a contract relationship between the parties by mandatory provisions to be included in and prohibitory provisions of standard form contract stimulated by competent authority; For the latter, as the issuer provides payment services, which is a part of financial services and may pose financial risks, the issuer is supervised and managed by The Act Governing Electronic Payment Institutions. In Japan, prepaid payment instruments are classified into self-issued and third-party issued based on whether the user and issuer have a close relationship, and a single-track regulation is adopted under the Payment Services Act, with different levels of supervision based on the risk level. It classifies advance payment methods into self-owned and third party by whether the user and issuer have close relationship. Even though the classification terms are different, it uses the same criteria to see if the user is limited to issuer only. Therefore, we could use the same idea to identify whether the user and issuer have close relationship by Payment Services Act in Japan. Under the same classification criteria, one adopts single-track system while the other adopts double-track system. The study will set a supervision boundary from the payment service concept to determine which one is more appropriated. In addition, both the Electronic Payment Institution Management Regulations in our country and the Payment Services Act in Japan belong to the payment regulatory framework. Apart from sharing a similar legislative history from the perspective of integrating the virtual and real worlds, they also have similar regulatory goals. However, there are differences in legislative structure, admission requirements, and funds preservation regulations. The study will analyze the appropriateness of the supervision regulation from the prospective of proportionate approach and seeking supervision balance. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。