《消費者債務清理條例》自2008年立法通過至今，已施行逾兩年，然司法統計結果與本條例施行前之預期效果迭有落差，因此，本研究之目的即為探討兩者間之差距及其發生原因。於此同時，筆者亦欲探討身處我國個人債務清理法制之債務人，於程序中所遇到之各樣挑戰，並主要係以我國法院內最受債務人青睞之債務清理程序—更生程序，作為本研究之主軸。而在此過程之中，為歸納分析法院認定之公允、可行更生方案之標準為何，嘗試以實證研究方法為切入點，探討影響更生方案中最核心之內容—債務人清償總金額與清償成數多寡之因素誰屬，最後並據此大膽提出對於我國現行個人債務清理法制架構調整之設計藍圖—「更生程序前置主義」，並羅列出搭配此主張之相關修法建議。 本文實證結果顯示，法院認可之更生方案中，就推論性統計研究而言，主要影響清償成數與清償總金額之解釋變數有：(一) 於聲請人資訊部分，除了聲請人前兩年總收入、總支出呈正向顯著影響效果外，另顯示聲請者為男性者，其清償成數與總金額，明顯大於女性聲請者，以及律師代理發揮功效，確實幫助聲請者減少其清償成數與總金額；(二) 於管轄法院部分，獲東部地區法院認可之更生方案，其清償成數與總金額顯著少於西部地區法院認可之更生方案；(三) 於更生方案內容部分，程序所耗時日越多者，清償總金額越大；債權總金額與清償成數呈反向變化，但與清償總金額呈正向變化。而本研究敘述性與推論性統計之發現，除幫助人們窺得影響法院決定更生方案清償成數與清償總金額多寡因素之一角，以及我國債務人之部分面貌外，更破除外界對於債務人更生方案僅需還款兩成等迷思，並有助於未來修法將清償成數 (總金額) 標準明文化之可能性大增，以增加法院審理債務清理事件之透明度與可預見性。The Consumer Insolvency Act (hereinafter the “CIA”) has been enforced more than 2 years in Taiwan start from 2008 April. However, there is huge gap between the judicial statistics and the expectation effect before the implementation of the CIA. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to investigate the gap between both of them and the causes. At the same time, in chapter two of this thesis, we also discuss the difficulties that debtors confront when applying the CIA, focus on the most popular insolvency proceedings—individual reorganization. In addition, we attempt to use empirical study to explore the factors that affect court’s decision on whether debtor’s repayment plan is fair and feasible or not. Finally, according to the above discussion and empirical results, we give advices and the blueprint to modify the framework of individual insolvency regime in Taiwan. In our blueprint, we advocate to enforce individual reorganization to be the formal preceding procedure of the CIA. By following the blueprint, the individual insolvency regime can be unitary-entry instead of multiple-entry which is time-consuming.If we can achieve this goal, it will make individual insolvency regime from multiple-entry to unitary-entry. Besides, in chapter six of this thesis, we also suggest a list of laws that needs to be amending to support the framework in the blueprint. We hope that through descriptive and inferential statistical findings of this study, it can help people understand how courts decide the total amount of repayment and payoff ratio in debtor’s repayment plan. And this thesis can also break the stereotypes toward debtors, such as the myth that the debtors only need to pay off 20% of debts. For the legislator, our findings also can help them establish explicit standard of the total amount of repayment or payoff ratio to increase openness and predictability of court decisions.
