消費者債務清理制度之建立，不論是在美國、日本或歐陸，早已有具體規範。各國規定雖容有不同，但其立法目的可謂趨於一致，均儘可能衡平保障債權人與債務人之利益，使誠信之債務人但基於種種原因而不能清償債務者，在一定條件下，得予以免責，而獲得在社會、經濟上重新開始之機會。消費者債務清理程序應儘可能簡易，以節省債務人在程序上不必要之勞費支出。 我國消費者債務清理條例，採用更生與清算雙軌制，由債務人選擇適合其進行之程序。相較於德國法制，程序更為經濟、簡化，乃有利於債務人儘速地獲得重新開始經濟生活之機會。惟為避免濫用，法院應依職權審查，是否具有不得免責之事由，而為不免責裁定。德國2006年之最新立法草案，亦採取我國法方式，於債務人完全欠缺支付工具，不能組成破產財團者，即得直接進行債務免除程序。但二者不同之處在於，在我國即由法院作成免責與否之裁定；但在德國仍須經過一定期間以後，始得予以免責。於該段期間，債務人如有所收入，仍應分配給債權人。德國法上妥善行為期間之規定，寓有促使債務人努力清償債務之意，亦能提高債權人受償比例，乃較為折衷之方式，有其值得參考之處，但妥善行為期間亦不宜過長。大體而言，消費者債務清理條例雖於若干規定，仍有值得討論之處，但不論是在立法架構或方向上，均值得肯定。也使我國消費者保護及債務清理法制及相關研究，邁進一個新的里程碑。

The consumer insolvency proceeding in U.S., Japan, and Europe is diffenent., but the purpose of legislation remains similar. The purpose is to balance interests of debtors and creditors, make honest debtors who can not pay debts exempted from debts under certain condition so that they obtain opportunities to begin new life. The debt cleansing procedure for consumer should be designed as simple and convenient as possible to save unnecessary expenses of procedure. Consumer Insolvency Law of Taiwan adopts dual system like U.S., including both reorganization and liquidation, which debtors are enable to choose the appropriate one from. Compare to Insolvency Law of Germany, the procedure is more simple and beneficial for debtors to discharge of residual debt. To avoid abuse, the court is supposed to investigate whether there are reasons of exemption or not positively under its authority and make decision. The difference between Taiwan and Germany for discharge of residual debt is that the court makes decision immediately in Taiwan, but a certain period must go through before decision in Germany. In that period, if there is any income debtor earns, the income should be distributed to creditors. The purpose of regulation of period in Germany is to urge debtors to try hard to pay debts. It is worthy of consulting, but the period should not be too long.