台灣現行之訴訟外機制已施行多年，在2008年發生雷曼兄弟連動債事件時，並未能有效確實的處理此等金融消費糾紛。為妥善處理相關的金融消費糾紛，台灣於2011年通過金融消費者保護法，並於2012年依法設立「財團法人金融消費評議中心」，針對金融消費糾紛特設評議的金融ADR制度。本研究之首要目的在於，比較我國現行之ADR制度，以了解何者最能符合金融消費者的利益。研究結果發現在各種ADR制度中，針對金融消費爭議所建立的金融消費評議中心，對金融消費者最為有利。然而，財團法人金融消費評議中心是否真正具備ADR制度應有的規範功能，達成保護金融消費者權益的目的，則須進行進一步的研究分析，本研究於是再針對財團法人金融消費評議中心自2012年開始運作以來，所發生之金融消費爭議，其經過訴訟解決之案件，進行個案分析，以便了解該法之施行對金融消費者之保護是否真有提昇。研究結果發現現行財團法人金融消費評議中心有紓解法院訴訟案件的功能，至於其評議結果未能得到雙方當事人肯定、接受，再行提起訴訟的情形，仍不乏其例。 Taiwan''s systems of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) have been implemented for quite some years. However, the systems were unable to solve effectively the disputes resulting from the Lehman Brothers''Structured Note incident in 2008. The Financial Consumer Protection Act of 2011 was enacted in order to deal with various disputes regarding financial consumers effectively and reasonably, which in turn resulted in the establishment of the “Financial Ombudsman Institution" as a non-profitable organization for the appraisal of related financial disputes. The primary purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate Taiwan''s various ADR systems with a view to understanding which one serves financial consumers'' best interest. The results indicate that, among various ADR systems, the “Financial Ombudsman Institution" is for the best interests of financial consumers. However, whether or not the Institution truly resolves financial disputes effectively and reasonably is subject to further research. One additional purpose of this study is to investigate into litigations regarding financial disputes which were previously dealt with by the Institution. By doing so, we are able to understand if the Institution serves its purpose of protecting financial consumers. The finding is somehow in the middle ground that the Institution effectively reduces courts'' case load, however it fails to gain consumers'' trust nor does it earn enough prestige as far as the courts are concerned.