论主观过错对不当得利返还范围的影响.pdfVIP

摘 要 不当得利制度起源于古罗马法，虽已有几千年的法律渊源，德国民法学家马肯西尼 斯(Markesinis)对不当得利有一个精彩的比喻，不当得利犹如罗马门神贾努斯 (Janus)。它前顾而后盼，一面注视着合同,以拭其所溢；一面紧盯着侵权，以纳其所遗; 而其眼角余光更远及物权。 不当得利产生后，依据各国历史发展而焕发出勃勃生机，以此衍生出不同的规则制 度，但其理论基础都是构架于，因其无法律上之依据而取得利益并致他人损害，受益方 应将所受的利益返还受损方之上。目前我国对不当得利的重视并不够，从立法上讲，仅 有一则条文一则解释，即《民法通则》92 条和最高法院《民通意见》131 条。究其原因 主要有：1、现代社会法律体系的完善，对民事活动的各类行为有专门的规定，不当得 利作为兜底的制度，难以发挥积极作用。2、作为一项民事制度，不当得利的适用在主 观上认定较多，学界争论较大。3、制度配套欠缺，法官往往用其他制度或原则替代， 加之越不敢判案例就越少，案例越少就更难以从中总结归纳，造成恶性循环。 本文将重点从受益人主观状态为突破口，分析不当得利“利”之分类、返还客体、 返还范围等方面进行剖析，并结合我国司法实践中所遇到的问题进行研究。 关键词：不当得利；善意；恶意；利益返还 1 万方数据 Abstract Unjust enrichment system originated in Roman law, though there are already thousands of years of legal origin, Germany, China and France scientist Marken Sinise (Markesinis) for unjust enrichment has a wonderful metaphor, unjust enrichment if Rome goalkeeper Adams (Janus) Gu then hope it before, while he watched the contracts to wipe it overflows; side glued to the infringement, to satisfied their heritage; farther corner of my eye and its property. While various countries and regions of the unjust enrichment of the specific provisions vary, but all agree that unjust enrichment is no legal basis to acquire benefits and cause damage to others, the interests of the beneficiaries should be returned to the injured party suffered. The legal relationship between the two is the relationship between credit and debt, the injured party is entitled to request the return of unjust enrichment claims beneficiary, the beneficiary is obliged to return the debt to the other side of unjust enrichment. At present, Chinas importance for unjust enrichment is not enough, from the legislative origins speaking, only one of an explanation that Ci