【作者】 张艳；

【导师】 陈锦红；

【作者基本信息】 湖南大学 ， 法律， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 近年来,随着人们的物质财富越来越丰富,对生活质量的要求越来越高,滋生不少年轻情侣为了结婚而共同购买房屋。虽然出资不一,产权证上大多为共有,但基于各种原因,这些情侣并未最终结婚,由此带来一系列的关于婚前财产的法律问题和纠纷。而本案就属于房屋由家长一方出资,产权由未婚夫妇双方共有,在未婚夫妇最终没有缔结婚姻的情况下,实际出资一方要求未出资一方返还财产的典型案例。该案例存在的争议主要有两点：一是原告的赠与财产行为是否属于附条件赠与；二是被告拒不返还赠与财产的行为是否构成不当得利。对于婚前赠与财产的属性到底如何界定是处理此类案例的关键。目前比较常见的有四种理论观点,即自愿赠与说、目的赠与说、附条件赠与说、不当得利说。本案原告在房产证上填写被告姓名属于婚前财产赠与,但不是附条件赠与。根据不当得利必须具备的四要件,本案被告基于原告的赠与实际取得了财产利益,但是原告的赠与是期待双方将来缔结婚姻关系,当这种期待不可能实现时,被告取得赠与财产失去了合法基础,构成不当得利,被告应当返还赠与财产。此外,本案中在装修款由谁实际支付的问题上原被告存在较大分歧,虽然原被告双方就此争议焦点进行了一定的举证,但都不能充分证明各自主张,法院基于公平原则认定房屋系双方共同共有是不妥的,而应当适用优势证据证明标准认定房屋购房款及装修款均系原告母亲出资、被告并未出资的事实,才能更好的保护原告作为善意赠与人的权利。更多还原

【Abstract】 In recent years, with people’s material wealth getting more and more rich, the quality of life has become increasingly higher, which leading many young couples to get married and buy a house together. Although the contribution is different, the property right belongs to the couples, but for various reasons, these couples did not eventually get married, which results series on pre-marital property for legal issues and disputes. This case is a typical case that the actual funding party asks not funded one return the property when lovers did not get married but the house funded by one parent by the total property. There are two controversies in this case:First, whether the plaintiffs gift of property is conditional gift; second, whether the defendant conducts for refusing to return the gift of property constitutes unjust enrichment. How to define pre-marital gift of property is crucial. Currently there are four theories of the more common view which are the voluntary gift, gift for purpose, conditional gift, and unjust enrichment. In this case, the behavior that plaintiff wrote the defendant’s name on the real estate license belongs to pre-marital property gift, but not conditional gift. According to the four factors of unjust enrichment, the defendant in this case actually achieve profit form the plaintiff’s gift, but not plaintiff give the house for getting marriage. When such expectations cannot be achieved, the defendant obtained the property without legal basis. It constitutes unjust enrichment; the defendant should return the property. In addition, there is a big rift on the problem of who should bear the cost of decoration of the house, although both the plaintiff and the defendant have offered beneficial evidence of each, but which can not fully prove their claim. The Court finds both of them owned the property right according to the principle of equity is not appropriate. The court should find the cost of buying the house and decoration belong to plaintiff’s mother and determinate the fact that the defendant has no contribution to the house according to proof standard, which can better protect the plaintiffs rights.更多还原