不当得利“没有合法根据”之概念澄清——基于“给付”概念的中国法重释  

The Clarification of the Concept of Unjust Enrichment Without Legal Cause

作　　者：娄爱华[1] 

机构地区：[1]苏州大学王健法学院,江苏苏州251006

出　　处：《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2012年第6期110-117,共8页Science of Law：Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law

基　　金：国家社会科学基金青年项目(12CFX059)民法原因理论研究

摘　　要：不当得利"没有合法根据"的证明责任问题在诉讼法上争议颇多。在探讨"没有合法根据"的证明责任问题前,应首先在民法上澄清"没有合法根据"的具体所指。我国民法对不当得利的理解受到德日的混合影响,但并未察觉德日对不当得利的理解路径是不同的。德国学说通过物权行为等理论构建,奠定了"给付"概念的基础,并进而明确了"没有合法根据"的所指。日本法基于自己的判例构建了与德国形似神异的不当得利学说,其"给付"及"没有合法根据"的所指与德国法不同,并在一定程度上导致了不当得利的"名不副实"。我国法不承认物权行为理论,也不应继受日本异化的不当得利理论,应根据我国现有民法制度重释"给付"概念,并在此基础上确定不当得利"没有合法根据"的具体所指,为其证明责任的确定奠定基础,也为其他诉讼法问题的解决奠定民法基础。Burden of proof of without legal cause is controversial in the field of procedure law in China.Before the resolution of problems of procedure law,the meaning of without legal ground should be clear as a civil law concept.Chinese doctrines about unjust enrichment are mainly influenced by theories from Germany and Japan.However,the basic understanding of unjust enrichment presented by the jurists of German and Japan are different,which are omitted by Chinese scholars.Through several endeavors by German jurists,the special meaning of Leistung in Germany law was given,and the indication of without legal cause in German law at the same time was clear.The evolution of Japanese doctrines about unjust enrichment was decided by its special jurisprudence.The contents of Leistung and without legal cause in Japanese law are totally different from the same of German law while in the same name.Chinese law did not accept some special theory of Germany doctrines,and should not accept the special development of Japanese doctrines.The contents of Leistung and without legal ground should be re-explained under Chinese special legal circumstance,which also should be the base for the resolution of procedural law problems,just like the burden of proof of without legal cause.

关 键 词：不当得利 给付 没有合法根据 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学]