让与债权不存在或无效时的不当得利返还关系认定  

The Relationship Between the Return of Unjust Enrichment When the Assignment Claim Does not Exist or Is Invalid

作　　者：刘思杨 LIU Siyang

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学,上海200042

出　　处：《上海市经济管理干部学院学报》2024年第2期57-63,共7页Journal of Shanghai Economic Management College

基　　金：甘肃省优秀研究生“创新之星”项目“产品创新与服务转型对制造企业高质量发展的协同效应——数字化程度的调节作用”(2022CXZX-785);甘肃政法大学研究生科研创新项目“数字化与制造业企业绿色创新关系研究:基于资源和组织的视角”(2023024);甘肃省优秀研究生“创新之星”项目“安全基地型领导对员工越轨创新行为的影响——工作重塑的中介作用”(2023CXZX-788)。

摘　　要：当债权让与中所让与债权不存在或无效时,债务人的给付目的决定可为其确定请求返还不当得利的主体提供判断标准。由于在债权让与中,给付受领人和合同当事人并不相同,相较于典型的三人关系如指示给付和真正利益第三人合同,在规范评价层面存在明显差异,所以不宜依循“分别清算、禁止直索”的一般三人不当得利返还关系的价值判断,由债务人向让与人请求返还不当得利;而是有必要结合债权让与中的特殊利益形态,例外地创设规则,赋予债务人对受让人的不当得利返还请求权,此设定不会对三方中任何一方当事人造成不利。When the assigned claim in the assignment of claims does not exist or is invalid,the determination of the debtor's payment purpose can provide a judgment standard for determining the subject requesting the return of unjust enrichment.Since the payment recipient and the parties to the contract are not the same in the assignment of claims,there are obvious differences in the normative evaluation level compared with the typical three-person relationship,such as the instruction payment and the real interest of a third-party contract,it is not appropriate to follow the value judgment of the general three-person unjust enrichment return relationship of“separate liquidation and prohibition of direct demand”,and the debtor requests the transferor to return the unjust enrichment;Instead,it is necessary to create a rule exceptionally,taking into account the special interest form in the assignment of claims,to give the debtor the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the assignee,and this setting will not cause disadvantage to any of the three parties.

关 键 词：债权让与 债权不存在或无效 不当得利 直索型不当得利 

分 类 号：D922.22[政治法律—经济法学]