本研究主要目的在於探討我國個人在尋求不同債務清理程序解決財務危機時，法院如何裁定轉換程序，對債務人及債權人較為有利，對此提出制度上之建議。 破產法(修法後為債務清理法)之立法目的在於調整債務人、債權人及其他利害關係人之權利與義務關係，債務人或債權人可以選擇「和解程序」或「破產程序」解決其債權債務問題。2005年，信用卡及現金卡危機重創台灣金融市場，不僅影響社會經濟，亦讓立法者知悉破產法尚不足以解決所有債務清理問題，故於2008年開始施行消費者債務清理條例，讓負債務之消費者可以選擇「更生程序」或「清算程序」清理其債務。自此，我國個人債務清理程序更為多元化。 雖然我國在債務清理機制上採取債務人具有複數程序選擇權之設計，惟破產法(修法後為債務清理法)中有法院裁定和解程序轉換為破產程序之規定，消費者債務清理條例中有法院裁定更生程序轉換為清算程序之規定，和解與更生為重建型債務清理程序，破產與清算為清算型債務清理程序，決定採取何種程序對債務人及債權人影響甚大，本文採取文獻歸納分析、比較法學分析及法律實證研究等研究方法，在瞭解我國、日本及美國之個人債務清理機制後，討論由法院裁定轉換程序是否適宜。 本研究結果認為法院無裁量權之必要移轉程序對債務人及債權人非一定有利，建議修改皆為裁量移轉程序；目前我國債務清理程序之轉換皆為單向，亦即由重建型程序轉換為清算型程序，參考外國法制，建議修改為雙向；最後是債務清理法與消費者債務清理條例之程序轉換可能，希冀本研究能使得我國債務清理機制更加發揮其功能。;The main purpose of this study is to discuss when individual is seeking different insolvency procedures to solve the financial crisis, whether the court determine the conversion is better for the debtor and creditors. Bankruptcy Act (Debt Clearance Act) is enacted with a view to adjusting the rights and obligations of the debtor, creditors and other interested parties. Debtor or creditor can choose composition or bankruptcy to settle claims and debts.In 2005, credit card and cash card crisis had a huge impact on Taiwan’s financial market. The crisis not only affected socio-economic, but also let legislator realize that Bankruptcy Act can’t solve all debt problems. Therefore, “The Consumer Debt Clearance Act” came into force in 2008. Consumer who is in debt can choose rehabilitation or liquidation to clear the debt. Since then, Taiwan’s individual insolvency procedure is more diversified. Although individual can choose the insolvency procedure, there are some rules that court determine the conversion. This study adopted documentary analysis, comparative analysis and empirical legal study to understand individual insolvency procedures in Taiwan, Japan and the United States, and discuss whether the court determine the conversion is appropriate. This study suggests that (1) the conversion of insolvency procedures is not always enforceable; (2) the conversion of insolvency procedures can be two-way; (3) the conversion can exist between Debt Clearance Act and The Consumer Debt Clearance Act.
