金融消费评议制度是由法院外之公正第三人,依据公平合理原则解决金融消费者(申请人)与金融服务业(相对人)民事纷争的一种机制。评议程序有别于高度形式化的诉讼程序,不行言词辩论,不施行严格的证据调查,在当事人同意下得不拘泥法律规定而以成立调处使纷争终结,评委委员亦非僵化地适用法律,而系本于公平合理之判断,衡平当事人之利益作成评议。最后,评议决定之当事人尚可选择是否接受评议决定,评议决定在一定金额以下者,其成立取决于申请人单方之决定,逾一定金额者,则须双方当事人均表示接受始得成立。反之,金融消费者若不服,犹可拒绝接受评议决定,另循法律途径解决。从当事人的角度观察,评议决定兼有调解建议(对金融消费者)及准仲裁(对金融服务业)之两面性;从法院的角度观察,评议决定纵已作成,尚非终局性地替代法院裁判,纷争事件实处于一种暂时性的推迟状态:一者由于当事人若拒绝接受,评议不成立,当事人仍得就同一事件兴起诉讼;再者,评议决定成立后虽具履行力,但尚须取得法院核可后,始具有执行力。对于此等以追求速捷、便利、弹性为目的取向的纷争解决机制,法院于核可程序中,是否有必要、在如何程度内进行实质审查?依据我国台湾地区的《金保法》第30条第3项的规定,评议书内容抵触法令、违背公共秩序或善良风俗或有其他不能强制执行之原因等不予核可,理论上,存在三种可能的处理模式:实体审查说、形式审查说、区剐说。英国法院对金融评议机构(FOS)所为决定,则向来以专业尊重原则、重大明显错误判断法则、排除假设性审判观点之介入,以及法院当为公正程序把关为其基本立场。但具体操作上,不同类型的争点实存在差异化的审查界限,例如:就管辖权、当事人适格等法律问题,法院未必受评议机构事实认定之拘束,而得自为调查、认定事实及适用法律。本文分从英国司法审查经验及我国台湾地区法院判决着手,就诉外纷争解决机制如何与法院功能接轨,提出了以下解决方案:(1)审查密度上导入公正程序保障及专业尊重原则为基础;(2)建立类型化审查基准。此等审查模式,不仅在法院核可评议决定之非讼程序,在评议撤销诉讼及宣告无效诉讼中亦有其适用。 Financial consumer appraisal system is a fair third party outside the court, according to the principle of fairness and reasonableness to solve a civil dispute between financial consumers (applicants) and financial services (relative). The procedure for appraisal is different from the highly formalized proceedings, the argument is not warranted, strict evidence investigation is not carried out, the dispute is not regulated by the parties’ consent with the consent of the parties, the dispute is terminated and the judges apply the law not rigidly This is a fair and reasonable judgment, balance the interests of the parties to make comments. Finally, the parties to the appraisal may still choose whether to accept the appraisal decision. If the appraisal decision is made below a certain amount, the establishment of the appraiser depends on the unilateral decision of the applicant. If the amount exceeds a certain limit, both parties agree that the appraisal will be accepted. On the contrary, if financial consumers refuse to accept, they may still refuse to accept the decision of assessment and seek legal solutions. Judging from the perspective of the parties concerned, the review and adjudication has the dual nature of mediation (for financial consumers) and quasi-arbitration (for financial services); judging from the court’s point of view, the decision-making process has been completed and is not yet a substitute for the court judgment , The dispute was actually in a temporary postponement: one because the parties refuse to accept, the comment is not established, the parties still litigation on the same incident; Moreover, the evaluation decided to set up although the implementation of force, but still have to obtain the court After approval, begin with execution. For these dispute resolution mechanisms aiming at pursuing speed, convenience and flexibility, is the court necessary or not in the approved procedure and conducted a substantive examination within the scope of the approval? According to Article 30 of the “Golden Security Law” in Taiwan of our country There are three possible modes of handling in accordance with the provisions of Article 3, the contents of a proposal against laws and ordinances, the violation of public order or good customs, or any other reasons why such enforcement can not be enforced. Theoretically, there are three possible modes of handling: substantive examination, formal examination District 剐 said. British courts’ decisions on financial review agencies (FOS) have always followed the principle of professional respect, making major and obvious wrong judgments, excluding the intervention of the presumptive trial and the court’s determination of impartiality as its basic position. However, in practice, there are differentiated censorship boundaries for different types of issues. For example, in the case of legal issues such as jurisdiction and eligibility of the parties, the court may not be bound by the factual determination of the accreditation body but may derive from the investigation, determination and application of facts legal. This article points out the following solutions based on the experience of judicial review in the United Kingdom and the judgments of Taiwan courts in our country. The following solutions are put forward on how to solve the dispute settlement mechanism between the courts and the courts: (1) To review the principles of fairness protection and professional respect for import on the basis of density; (2) establish a type of review benchmarks. Such censorship models apply not only to the non-compliance of court decisions approving the resolution but also to the review and cancellation proceedings and the invalidation proceedings.