本文首先介紹我國之金融消費者保護法（下稱「金融消保法」），再由各相關判決進一步凸顯我國法在適合度及說明義務之規定上，仍有定位不清和適用上的些許問題。由於我國之金融消保法有關適合度及說明義務的規定均參考自日本者，故就我國和日本在這方面的比較便有其重要性。從而，本文於闡述日本對於適合性原則和說明義務之規範後，將比較二國間立法和實務上之差異。在適合度之規定方面，我國之適合度採無過失責任，且極易該當損害賠償之要件；但日本則未採無過失責任，且有關損害賠償在實務上有質和量的要件。至於說明義務，我國法院在判斷金融服務業是否履行說明義務上仍可能過於形式化，而不像日本以實質要件進行考量，並確實依不同金融消費者之特性而就說明義務有不同的要求。未來我國在立法論上，可能應重新考量適合度的無過失責任是否適當，亦即可考慮回復到一般的抽象輕過失責任，以避免造成金融消費者的道德風險。在解釋論上，可能應更加考量說明義務之實質要件，就金融消費者的各項特質進行判斷，而非僅考慮契約之簽名等形式要件。在違反說明義務和適合度等行為的定性上，亦可參考日本法，將其定性為特殊侵權行為。除說明義務和適合度本身之定性和判斷外，本文亦認為我國應將說明義務與適合性之內部規則納入內控制度，並應課予疏於監督內控制度之建立與有效運作的董事，須與公司對金融消費者負連帶損害賠償責任，以提供董事監督員工的誘因，讓員工在充分的監督下更能遵循說明義務和適合度等規定。

This article begins with the introduction of the Financial Consumer Protection Act (the ＂FCPA＂) in Taiwan. Analyzing cases involving the FCPA, we can see that the nature of the suitability rule and the duty of disclosure under the FCPA are not so clear while the court judgments also conflict with each other. Given that the suitability rule and the duty of disclosure under the FCPA were imported from Japan, it is important to compare the rules between Taiwan and Japan. For that reason, this article introduces the suitability rule and the duty of disclosure in the context of financial instruments in Japan, and compares the differences between Taiwan and Japan. As for the suitability rule, Taiwan imposes a strict liability on financial services providers. However, Japan does not impose such a liability. Also, the judgments in Japan adopt a clear standard of quality and quantity in determining the breach of the suitability rule. As to the duty of disclosure, compared with those in Japan, the judgments in Taiwan are still a little bit too formalistic in that requirements on how to disclose are not differentiated for financial services providers when they encounter different kinds of consumers. Should we rethink the imposition of a strict liability in the regulation of suitability? Or we may consider adopting the standard of simple negligence to avoid the moral hazard of financial consumers. Should the courts pay more attention to substantive elements on characteristics of different consumers when they adjudicate the cases related to the duty of disclosure? Further we can consider characterizing the breach of the duty of disclosure and the suitability rule as a special kind of a tort by referring to Japanese law. Moreover, we should require financial firms to integrate the duty of disclosure and the suitability rule into their internal controls, while imposing joint and several liabilities on directors who ignore overseeing their employees. That way, directors are incentivized to monitor employees. Employees will thus obey the duty of disclosure and the suitability rule more carefully under directors' oversight.