不当得利“没有合法根据”要件的证明责任分配

发布时间：2018-06-06 13:14

本文选题：给付型不当得利 + 非给付型不当得利　；参考：《吉林大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：从《民法通则》第92条的规定中可以看出,不当得利纠纷的发生必须具备四个构成要件:(1)一方当事人获得财产利益;(2)另一方当事人受到损失;(3)获得利益和受到损失之间具有因果关系;(4)获得利益没有合法根据。通说认为,前三个构成要件的证明责任由主张不当得利返还请求权的一方当事人(以下简称请求人)承担;而“没有合法根据”要件的证明责任分配则存在较大争议,因为我国立法中对此没有明确、具体的规定,所以审判实践中不当得利案件的裁判结果多有矛盾,而学术界对于这个问题也存在不同的认识。可见,“没有合法根据”要件的证明责任分配在不当得利案件的证明责任分配中既是核心之处,也是难点所在。相比而言,域外不当得利的研究和适用更加成熟。因此,我们可以广泛借鉴德国、日本以及我国台湾地区相关的立法和理论,将不当得利区分为给付型和非给付型不当得利,并在此基础上进一步展开类型化的研究,以便我们能够更加深刻地理解不当得利案件中“没有合法根据”要件的证明责任分配问题。给付型不当得利主要调整的是欠缺给付目的的不当得利纠纷,因为给付行为是由请求人作出来的,其应该十分清楚给付行为缺乏目的的事实,同时为了保护财产利益的安定性,当请求人主张返还财产利益时,就应当由其来承担“没有合法根据”要件的证明责任。但是,因为“没有合法根据”有时候表现为消极的要件事实,如果要求请求人最大限度地证明所有可能的事实,在逻辑上看来就是过分加重了其证明责任。为了缓和请求人承担的过重的证明责任,我们可以要求获得利益的一方当事人(以下简称受益人)对其获益有合法根据做出合理、详尽的说明,在这个前提之下,再由请求人对受益人提出的抗辩事由予以反驳和证明。如果受益人不履行或者不积极履行这一具体化说明义务,我们就可以直接依照《证据规定》第8条关于自认的规定,视为受益人对请求人主张的不利于己方的事实的承认,此时,请求人就不再对“没有合法根据”这个关键的构成要件承担证明责任。非给付型不当得利主要保护的是财产利益的归属,其中,在因请求人行为的非给付型不当得利中,尽管请求人对行为缺乏真实的意思表示,但其作为引发财产利益变动的主体,在案件事实真伪不明的情况下,由请求人来承担证明责任符合民法中的意思自治和自己责任原则。与此相反,在非因请求人行为的非给付型不当得利中,引起财产利益变动的原因一般包括受益人或第三人的行为、事件及法律规定,而不是请求人的行为,这时候的“没有合法根据”要件在性质上更接近于一种消极事实,请求人承担证明责任的难度就变得很大。而受益人既然处在财产变动的整个过程之中,相比请求人来说,更容易提供其获益有合法根据的证据,因此,由受益人承担证明责任更加妥当。
[Abstract]:As can be seen from the provisions of article 92 of the General principles of Civil Law, The occurrence of improper enrichment dispute must have four constituent elements: 1) one party obtains the property benefit / 2) the other party suffers a loss / 3) there is a causal relationship between the gain benefit and the loss. 4) there is no legal basis for obtaining the benefit. Generally speaking, the burden of proof of the first three constitutive elements is borne by the party who claims the right to return the claim for improper enrichment (hereinafter referred to as the claimant), while the assignment of the burden of proof "without lawful basis" is controversial. Because there are no clear and specific provisions in the legislation of our country, there are many contradictions in the adjudication results of unjust enrichment cases in trial practice, and the academic circles also have different understanding on this issue. It can be seen that the distribution of the burden of proof without legal basis is not only the core but also the difficulty in the distribution of the burden of proof in the case of improper enrichment. In contrast, the study and application of improper enrichment abroad is more mature. Therefore, we can draw lessons from the relevant legislation and theory of Germany, Japan and Taiwan region, and divide improper enrichment into non-paid and non-paid unjust enrichment, and on this basis, we can carry out further research on typology. So that we can understand the distribution of burden of proof in unjust enrichment cases. The main adjustment for improper enrichment of the type of payment is the dispute of improper enrichment which lacks the purpose of payment, because the act of giving is made by the claimant, and it should be very clear about the fact that the act of giving is lacking in purpose, and at the same time, in order to protect the stability of property interests, When the claimant claims the return of property interests, he should bear the burden of proof that there is no legal basis. However, because "there is no legal basis" is sometimes manifested as a negative element of the facts, if the claimant is required to prove all possible facts to the maximum extent, it is logically excessive to increase the burden of proof. In order to alleviate the excessive burden of proof borne by the claimant, we may require the party receiving the benefit (hereinafter referred to as the beneficiary) to give a reasonable and detailed explanation of the benefit on the basis of which, Then the claimant refutes and proves the defense of the beneficiary. If the beneficiary fails or does not actively perform this specific obligation of illustration, we may, in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of the "evidence provisions" concerning self-admission, consider the beneficiary's recognition of the facts claimed by the claimant to the detriment of his party, At this point, the claimant will no longer bear the burden of proof to the key element of "no legal basis". The ownership of property interest is the main protection of improper enrichment of non-payment type, in which, in the improper enrichment of non-payment type due to the behavior of the claimant, although the claimant lacks a true expression of intention to the act, it is the main body that causes the change of property interests. In the case where the facts of the case are not clear, the applicant shall bear the burden of proof in accordance with the autonomy of will and the principle of his own responsibility in the civil law. On the contrary, in the case of improper enrichment not due to the behavior of the claimant, the reasons for the change of property interests generally include the actions of the beneficiary or the third party, events and legal provisions, rather than the conduct of the claimant, At this time, the requirement of "no legal basis" is closer to a negative fact in nature, and it becomes very difficult for the claimant to bear the burden of proof. Since the beneficiary is in the whole process of property change, it is easier for the beneficiary to provide the evidence with legal basis than the claimant, so it is more appropriate for the beneficiary to bear the burden of proof.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】