부산대학교 도서관

在中国法上，消费者合同中欺诈的重要意义在于其具有惩罚性赔偿的 法效果，其法律关系与法律后果相较与民法上的欺诈有特殊性. 长期以 来，消费欺诈的构成要件存在争议. 有观点认为消费欺诈是消费者法的特 殊制度，在过错、因果关系方面无须完全符合民法上欺诈的要件. 本文认 为，在适用消费欺诈惩罚性赔偿时首先应以客观经营者视角判定购买者 是否“为生活消费需要”而购买商品或服务，“知假买假者”可被视为消费者. 消费欺诈中经营者的过错仅以故意为限，不包含重大过失，但应对欺诈 的举证责任和证明标准予以缓和，消费者仅须提出证明欺诈存在的初步 证据即可. 消费者因欺诈而做出购买行为的因果关系要件不应被抛弃. 评 价因果关系时,应结合具体消费场景以具备一般生活经验及认知能力的普 通理性消费者为标准，“知假买假者”因不具备因果关系要件而不能请求消 费欺诈惩罚性赔偿.
In Chinese law, the significance of fraud in consumer contracts lies in the legal effect of punitive damages. The legal relation and legal consequences of consumption fraud are more exceptional than those in civil law. For a long time, there have been disputes regarding the constitutive elements of consumer fraud. Some argue that consumption fraud is a special institution in consumer law, and does not require complete conformity with the elements of fraud under civil law in terms of fault and causality. This article contends that when applying consumption fraud provision, the first step should be to determine from an objective business operator’s perspective whether the purchaser acquires goods or services “for daily consumption”. People who “intentionally purchase counterfeit goods” can be regarded as consumers. The fault of business operators in consumption fraud is limited to intention and does not encompass gross negligence. Nevertheless, the burden of proof and the standard of proof for fraud should be mitigated. Consumers are only required to present preliminary evidence of fraud. The causality element, i.e., consumers’ purchasing behavior resulting from fraud, shouldn’t be disregarded. The causality should be based on the standard of an ordinary rational consumer with general life experience and cognitive ability in specific consumption scenarios. Due to the absence of the element of causality, People who “intentionally purchase counterfeit goods” cannot claim punitive damages for consumption fraud.