获利返还论——以《侵权责任法》第20条为中心

发布时间：2018-06-24 05:09

本文选题：获利返还 + 不当得利　；参考：《法商研究》2017年04期

【摘要】：从解释论的角度看,《侵权责任法》第20条规定的获利返还,只是损害赔偿的客观计算方式,而非权益侵害型不当得利返还。因为不当得利法没有制裁和预防功能,利润不属于不当得利的返还范围。但是,获利返还并不符合损害填补思想,加害人所得利润亦非受害人的所失利益。由于受害人一般难以证明加害人获得的利润,人格标识对利润形成的贡献难以确定,故获利返还在实践中的适用极为有限。从立法论的角度来看,获利返还不应成为独立的债的类型,它主要适用于利用他人排他性权益的营利行为和营利性违约行为。前者应由不法无因管理调整,以行为人故意介入他人事务为要件;后者则应在合同法中通过一般条款来调整,以实际履行和损害赔偿无法救济守约方为前提。
[Abstract]:From the angle of explanation, the return of profits stipulated in Article 20 of Tort liability Law is only the objective calculation method of compensation for damages, not the return of improper enrichment of infringement of rights and interests. Because unjust enrichment law has no sanction and prevention function, profit does not belong to the scope of improper profit return. However, the return of profits is not in line with the idea of compensation of damage, nor is the profit of the victim lost. Because the victim is difficult to prove the profits obtained by the perpetrator and the contribution of personality logo to the formation of profit is difficult to determine, the application of profit return in practice is very limited. From the point of view of legislation, the return of profits should not become an independent type of debt. It is mainly applicable to the profit-making and for-profit breach of contract by using the exclusive rights and interests of others. The former should be adjusted by the management of lawlessness without cause, with the actor intentionally intervening in the affairs of others, while the latter should be adjusted by general terms in contract law, with the premise that actual performance and compensation for damages cannot remedy the parties to the contract.
【作者单位】：北京市社会科学院博士后工作站;中国社会科学院法学研究所博士后流动站;
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】