不当得利的成因及返还利益范围分析

【作者】 马金海；

【导师】 李永军；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2006， 硕士

【摘要】 不当得利由罗马法创设,至今已发展为现代民法上的一项一般制度。与契约、无因管理、侵权行为等共同构成了债的发生原因。不当得利之债为法定之债,其规范构成要件及法律效果均为法律所拟制。不当得利之债的发生基于“无法律上的原因而受利益,致他人损害”的事实,形成这一事实,是否基于人的行为,在所不问。从不当得利的法律后果上看,依受益人是否知悉其受有利益有无法律上原因,有因受益人善意而成的不当得利;有因受益人恶意而成的不当得利。物权行为理论与不当得利的关系极为密切,我国由于不承认物权行为的无因性,所以不当得利的适用范围在很大程度上受到了限制。产生不当得利的原因可归纳为三类:法律的直接规定;给付目的不存在;传统民法区分债权行为与物权行为进而确立物权行为效力无因性。不当得利中的“利益”历来备受学者们关注,不当得利成立中的“利益”与不当得利效果中的返还“利益”是不同的。不当得利成立中的利益,即债务人在成立不当得利之时所取得的利益。不当得利的效果中的“利益”,是不当得利债务人所应返还的利益,即所谓“现存利益”。成因不同的不当得利,其法律效果之返还利益范围是不同的,不当得利受益人主观上的善意或恶意对不当得利的成立无意义但对确定返还利益范围却至关重要。善意受益人的返还范围以现存利益为限,恶意受益人则负加重返还责任。现存利益的界定应在差额说的基础上以人们通常的社会观念和受益人的主观方面为基准,其返还范围应受“矛盾行为禁止”原则的限制。受益人基于不当得利以法律行为又取得利益的情形,系不当得利返还范围的问题,应与不当得利之债的客体予以区别。对该种受益人基于不当得利所受之利益以法律行为又取得的利益的分配,应以不当得利的成因而为判断。不当得利制度所产生的法律问题,常与民法其他制度发生密切的联系,欲研究不当得利制度,必须结合其与各相关制度的关系方能把握其本质及其适用。更多还原

【Abstract】 Unjust enrichment is a general institution in modern civil law. Unjust enrichmentwith contract, voluntary service and tort constitutes the causes of debts. The debt ofunjust enrichment is a debt created by law, so its effective conditions and legal effectsare both created by law. Unjust enrichment is based on the fact o“flack of legal causesincurs benefits but infringes others”,whether or not based on humans acts. Accordingto the beneficiary’s intention, unjust enrichment can be divided into two categories:unjust enrichment with beneficiary’s good intention and unjust enrichment withbeneficiary’s evil intention. The legal act of real right theory is closely connected withunjust enrichment. The applicable scope of unjust enrichment is restricted in greatdegree, because our country does not acknowledge the independence of legal act ofreal right. The reasons for unjust enrichment can be classified into three categories,the first one is that based on the regulation of law, the second is that based on defectsin intention of delivery, the third is that based on traditional civil law’s divisionbetween legal act of creditor’s right and legal act of real right. The definition ofbenefits in unjust enrichment is widely concerned by scholars. Benefits in the form ofunjust enrichment differ from benefits which should be restituted. The former is thatthe debtor received when unjust enrichment established. The latter is that the debtorshould return, which is the extant benefits. Unjust enrichments with differentcausations are different in the scope of restitution (of benefits). The intention ofbeneficiary has no significance in the establishment of unjust enrichment, but isextremely important to the definition of scope of restitution (of benefits). The scope ofrestitution for receiver with good intention is restricted in extant benefits. But forreceiver with evil intention, liability is heavier. Extant benefits should be based on thebalance theory, and should be pursuant to people’s social ideas and beneficiary’sintention. The scope of restitution should be restricted by the principle of “forbiddingincompatible behaviors”. When the beneficiary receives benefits based on a legal act,it refers to the scope of restitution which should be distinguished from the object ofunjust enrichment. The classification of causation of unjust enrichment in this thesiscan explain how to distribute the benefits of this kind. Legal issues produced by theinstitution of unjust enrichment are often closely connected with other civil lawinstitutions. In order to research the institution of unjust enrichment, we have to payattention to the relation between it and other civil law institutions, so as to commandthe essence and application of unjust enrichment.更多还原