不当得利诉讼中的证明责任问题研究

发布时间：2018-03-07 20:27

本文选题：不当得利　切入点：证明责任　出处：《华东政法大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：随着不当得利诉讼案件的日益增多，实践中出现许多复杂的问题，而我国关于不当得利制度的规定仅有一条法律规范和一条司法解释，并不能解决实践中出现的复杂问题，而且相关的理论研究亦较为欠缺，，因而，在不当得利诉讼中证明责任分配问题上，实务界和理论界都存在很大的争议，其中争议的焦点所在是不当得利诉讼中“获利没有合法根据”这一要件的证明责任如何分配，在理论界和实务界都存在着“被告负担说”和“原告负担说”的分歧。此外，在实践中也有证明责任分配错误、原告提供证据的责任被忽略以及裁判地进行没有严格按照证明责任的要求等问题。这必然造成法院审判中同案不同判现象的出现，同时也会导致当事人随意变更自己的诉由选择。为了正确探究不当得利诉讼中证明责任的合理分配，特别是“获利没有合法根据”这一要件事实的证明责任的正确分配，本文首先以典型案例为切入点，找出不当得利诉讼案件中证明责任分配问题的争议焦点。然后总结现行证明责任的各种理论的主张和立论理由，寻求我国证明责任分配的理论基础。并在此基础上分析我国的证明责任分配规则体系，理顺我国的证明责任分配规则适用的顺序，得出不当得利诉讼案件中的证明责任分配应该适用的具体规则。同时文章从批判“被告负担说”的角度，运用当前证明责任分配的主流学说，阐述不当得利诉讼中的证明责任分配，揭示出“被告负担说”的错误所在。此外，笔者尝试运用否认与抗辩的相关理论，判断不当得利诉讼中被告反驳原告主张的性质。若原告对其主张的使不当得利返还请求权得以成立的要件事实的证明责任已经完成，被告的反驳则针对的是权利行使要件，此时被告的反驳即为抗辩；若原告对其主张的使不当得利返还请求权得以成立的要件事实的证明责任尚未完成，不当得利返还请求权不能成立，此时被告的反驳则是针对权利成立要件，从性质上只能认定为否认。根据“否认者无需承担证明责任，抗辩者要承担证明责任”的理论，得出不当得利诉讼中如何分配证明责任。
[Abstract]:With the increasing number of cases of unjust enrichment litigation, there are many complicated problems in practice. However, there is only one legal norm and one judicial interpretation in the system of unjust enrichment in our country, which cannot solve the complex problems in practice. And the related theoretical research is also relatively lacking, therefore, in the improper enrichment litigation, the burden of proof distribution problem, the practice and the theoretical circles are very controversial. The focus of the dispute lies in how to distribute the burden of proof in the element of "no legal basis for profit" in unjust enrichment litigation. There are differences between "defendant burden theory" and "plaintiff burden theory" in theoretical and practical circles. There are also some problems in practice, such as misdistribution of burden of proof, negligence of the burden of proof provided by the plaintiff and failure to strictly comply with the requirement of burden of proof, which will inevitably lead to the appearance of different judgments of the same case in the court of justice. At the same time, it will cause the parties to change their choice of cause of action at will. In order to correctly explore the reasonable distribution of burden of proof in unjust enrichment litigation, especially the correct distribution of burden of proof in the fact that "profit has no legal basis", this paper firstly takes typical cases as the starting point. Find out the focus of dispute on the distribution of burden of proof in unjust enrichment litigation. Then summarize the claims and arguments of various theories of burden of proof. This paper seeks the theoretical basis of the distribution of the burden of proof in our country, and on this basis analyzes the system of the rules of assignment of the burden of proof in our country, and straightens out the order in which the rules of assignment of the burden of proof are applied in our country. At the same time, from the point of view of criticizing the "burden of the defendant", the paper applies the current mainstream theory of burden of proof to the distribution of burden of proof. This paper expounds the distribution of burden of proof in unjust enrichment litigation, and reveals the mistake of "burden of defendant". In addition, the author tries to apply the theory of denial and defense. If the plaintiff's burden to prove the fact that the claim for improper enrichment has been established has been completed, the defendant's rebuttal is aimed at the exercise of the right. At this point, the defendant's rebuttal is a defense; if the plaintiff has not completed the burden of proof of the facts in which the claim for improper enrichment return is established, the claim for improper enrichment return cannot be established. At this time, the defendant's rebuttal is aimed at the requirements of the establishment of the right, which can only be regarded as denial in nature. According to the theory that "the disclaimer does not have to bear the burden of proof, the defenses bear the burden of proof". How to distribute the burden of proof in unjust enrichment litigation.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1;D923

【相似文献】