民法典不当得利返还责任体系之展开
陈自强民法典不当得利返还责任体系之展开
Liability System of Restitution for Unjust Enrichment in Chinese Civil Code
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：陈自强
单位：
中文关键词：不当得利返还责任;双务契约无效;契约之回复;所受利益不存在;恶意得利人责任
英文关键词：restitution for unjust enrichment; invalidity of bilateral contract; restitution after contract termination; non-existence of received benefit; liability for malicious enrichment
中文摘要：
不当得利虽自民法通则即有规定，但到民法典才对其法律效果有进一步的规定。返还范围区别得利人为善意或恶意，似乎被认为理所当然。不当得利有给付与非给付得利两大类型，已蔚为共识，但如果返还效果规定无视启动返还因素的不同，无差别地适用于所有不当得利案型，“非统一说”并无实际意义。双务契约无效或被撤销，已为之给付没有法律依据，构成不当得利，但返还关系之内容，应优先适用民法典第157条，原物返还不能，应折价补偿，而不适用民法典第986条及第987条之规定。非基于双务契约的一方给付案型及侵害权益不当得利案型，为适用该二规定最重要的对象。金钱得利人负有金额返还义务，通常无所受利益不存在的问题，但在溢付薪资或扶养费案例，比较法上常基于不当得利法以外之价值判断，从宽认定所受利益不存在。民法典第987条恶意得利人赔偿损失规定之解释适用，有待厘清，若认为属侵权责任，则不当得利返还责任与侵权责任之关系，剪不断，理还乱。
英文摘要：
Unjust enrichment is provided for in the General Principles of the Civil Law, and its legal effect is further stipulated in Chinese Civil Code. It seems to be taken for granted that, in the determination of the scope of restitution, a distinction should be made between bona fide enrichment and malicious enrichment. There is a consensus that unjust enrichment can be divided into payment enrichment and non-payment enrichment. However, if the provisions on the effect of restitution are applied indiscriminately to all unjust enrichment cases regardless of the differences between various factors of initiating restitution, the “non-unity theory” has no practical significance. In the case of invalidity or cancellation of a bilateral contract, the payment already made has no legal basis and constitutes unjust enrichment. However, Article 157 of Chinese Civil Code should be given priority among legal provisions applicable to the content of the restitution relationship. If the restitution of original property is not possible, the court should order compensation at the estimated price, rather than apply the provisions of Articles 986 and 987 of Chinese Civil Code. The most important objects of the application of these two articles are cases of one-party payment not based on bilateral contract and cases of right-infringement-type unjust enrichment. The party who is unjustly enriched pecuniarily has the obligation to return the amount of enrichment, and usually the issue of non-existence of the benefit from the enrichment does not arise in such cases. However, in cases of overpayment of wage, child support, and alimony, the non-existence of benefit is often defined broadly based on value judgment other than unjust enrichment law. The interpretation and application of Article 987 of Chinese Civil Code on compensation for losses resulting from malicious enrichment need to be clarified. If the compensation is considered to be a tort liability, the relationship between restitution for unjust enrichment and tort liability will become helplessly messy.
全文阅读： 点击下载
