论不当得利返还范围法学专业论文.docx

PAGE PAGE 1 Abstract The emphasis of academic research on unjust enrichment has always been its constituent elements ,but ignored aspects of its legal effects.The practice of unjust enrichment claimelements of the judicial decisions are of hundreds and thousands, with wide coverage, and the scope of return of unjust enrichment decisions are so narrow.Of course, this is not to say that research on the scope of return of unjust enrichment is of no value, but because the legislation of our country is not that perfect and leads to judicial confusion. Research on the scope of return of unjust enrichment,can not only facilitate the removal of the beneficiary of no legal reason by benefit with practical value, but also can absorb and learn from the two legal systems on the unjust enrichment,whose provisions are more superior.This paper discusses this issue mainly by means of comparative research, historical research and methods of hermeneutics. In this paper, by analyzing three core case about the scope of return of unjust enrichment and then put forward questions; then uses the methods of comparison,to compare the provisions on the scope of return of unjust enrichment in the two law systems, analysis the questions raising from the case .The full text is divided into four parts.The first part introduces the questions.The second part mainly analyzes the provisions on the scope of return of unjust enrichment in civil law. The civil law on unjust enrichment mainly ruled in two aspects, that is ,the initial return range and expansion of the scope of restitution.For unjust enrichment to take delivery of the goodwill of the people, only to return the existing interests to the initial responsibility; and for the malicious return obligation ,who has known or later knows the benefits are without legal reasons ,the existing interests, acceptance of additional interests, together with the payment, if the creditor bears damages, the malicious people must bear the responsibility of