非法性抗辩与不当得利返还——以英国法为比较对象的研究  

The Defence on the Restitution of Unjust Enrichment——A Comparative Study with English Law

作　　者：王洪[1] 高凡 WANG Hong;GAO Fan(The Civil&Commercial Law School,Southwest University of Political Science&Law,Chongqing 401120,China)

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学民商法学院,重庆401120

出　　处：《法学论坛》2023年第1期139-150,共12页Legal Forum

摘　　要：若合同涉及非法性而不可强制执行,一方当事人就其已履行部分提起的返还请求通常因非法性抗辩而无法得到救济。尽管该抗辩具备正当性,但其僵化适用易导致司法不公。英国法为缓和其刚性而设置的例外情形,在适用中亦存在缺陷。为妥善处理非法性抗辩适用中的问题,英国法律委员会提出在衡量系列因素基础上作出裁判的建议得到英国司法界的广泛认可。我国《民法典》第157条未区分法律行为无效的原因而作统一返还之规定,存在法律漏洞,法院关于不法原因给付的处理方式亦分歧明显。“系列因素”方案对我国处理相关问题具有启示意义,将各因素类型化后可作为司法实践的参考。Where a contract involves illegality and is unenforceable,a party’s claim for return of the part performed is usually barred by the illegality defence.Despite the legitimacy of the defence,its rigid application can easily lead to a miscarriage of justice.The exceptions created in English law to mitigate its rigidity are also flawed in their application.The Law Commission’s recommendation that the illegality defence should be decided on the basis of a range of factors has been widely accepted by the English judiciary in order to properly address the problems in its application.Article 157 of the Civil Code does not differentiate between the causes of invalidity of legal acts and provides for a uniform return,which leaves a legal loophole,and the courts are clearly divided on the treatment of payment of unlawful cause.The"range of factors"proposal is instructive for China in dealing with the relevant issues,and the typology of factors can be used as a reference for judicial practice.

关 键 词：非法性抗辩 不当得利 返还 民法典 不法原因给付 

分 类 号：D908[政治法律—法学理论] D913[政治法律—法学]