《破产法》第42条涉不当得利条款解释论  

On the interpretation of unjust enrichment clause in article 42 of Bankrupt Law

作　　者：娄爱华[1] 

机构地区：[1]苏州大学王健法学院

出　　处：《社会科学》2013年第4期99-106,共8页Journal of Social Sciences

基　　金：国家社科基金项目"民法原因理论研究"(项目批准号:12CFX059)的阶段性研究成果

摘　　要：只有德国和受到德国影响的若干国家和地区在破产法中规定了不当得利之债优先受偿。德国法确立这一规则是因其特有的物权行为理论,不当得利之债优先受偿的学理解释与物权行为理论紧密相关。《日本破产法》受德国影响规定了相同规则,但其民法学理并不认可物权行为理论,因而另辟蹊径基于破产财团的独立性对该规则予以解释。我国《破产法》亦规定了该规则,但对其学理背景欠缺了解,存在立法论上的缺陷,应籍由解释论予以弥补。The priority of unjust enrichment claim in bankrupt law, which is decided by real right legal transaction theory, is stipulated only by German law and some jurisdictions which are influenced by German law. The bankrupt law of Japan also provides the priority of unjust enrichment claim, but Japanese civil law theory doesn＇t accept the real right legal transaction theory, which is a very special German legal theory. The priority in Japanese bankrupt law is interpreted as a result of dependency of bankruptcy entity, while in German is based on the real right legal transaction theory. Chinese bankrupt law also admits the priority of unjust enrichment claim, but lacks a clear understanding of the theoretical background of the rule above mentioned, which leads some legislative deficiencies.

关 键 词：不当得利 物权行为 破产财团 

分 类 号：DF591.6[政治法律—民商法学]