金融消費爭議事件之評議制度，乃於訴訟外由公正第三人循一定之爭議處理程序，依公平合理原則作成判斷，解決當事人間因金融商品或服務所生之民事紛爭。評議決定成立後，金融消費者得依金保法第三十條規定，申請將評議書送法院核可，俾取得與確定判決同一之效力。由於評議決定在個案上容許公平合理之判斷，且同時具有調解建議及準仲裁之性質，就此一特殊制度法院應採取何等密度之審查標準，實務上存在不同看法。本文藉由英國與我國之立法例、爭議處理程序及法院審查案例等比較研究，嘗試為我國法院核可程序之審查界線及操作基準提出具體建議，希能對我國金融消費紛爭解決替代機制之監督與功能促進有所助益。

The Financial Ombudsman’s Scheme is a kind of out-of-court dispute resolution, which is decided by an independent party (ombudsman or a panel of ombudsmen) according to his/her fair and reasonable judgment and due process, to resolve private disputes regarding financial products or services. In order to make the ombudsman’s final decision have the same legal effect and to be enforceable like a judgment made by the court, the applicant (financial consumer) may ask that the decision be sent to court for approval under Article 30 of the Financial Consumer Protection Act. The ombudsman’s fair and reasonable judgment is on a one-off case basis. On one hand, it conveys a recommendation to the financial consumer for consideration; on the other hand, it is legally binding on the respondent (financial business) when the monetary award is no more than the maximum limitation laid by the Financial Ombudsman Institution. For such a concern, different points of view exist about what reviewing intensity should be adopted by the court when approving a financial ombudsman’s decision. By a comparative analysis of relevant regulations, the dispute handling process and judicial review cases between the British and R.O.C., this article introduces some practical standards and suggestions for the court’s operation, with the expectation to make further progress in overseeing and functioning financial alternative dispute resolutions as well.