论文部分内容阅读
在返还不当得利之债诉讼中,对于不当得利构成要件中的“无法律上原因”的(客观)证明责任的分配,学界多有论争,既有“无法律上原因”的证明责任应由请求人承担的观点,也有“有法律上原因”的证明责任应由被请求人承担的观点,更有依据不同的类型在双方当事人之间分配证明责任的观点,凡此种种。本文也试图从实体法上不当得利的类型划分出发,对“无法律上原因”这一不当得利关键性构成要件的证明责任进行合理化的分配,以期对理论界和实务界解决这一问题有所裨益。
In the litigation of returning unjust enrichment, there is more controversy in the academic circle about the distribution of (objective) proof of “no legal reason ” in the constitution of unjust enrichment, both of which have “no reason for law” The point of view that the burden of proof should be borne by the claimant, and the point that the burden of proof “for a legal reason” should be borne by the claimant, and the burden of proving the burden of proof between the parties on the basis of different types All kinds. This article also attempts to proceed from the type division of unjust enrichment in the substantive law and rationally allocates the burden of proof on the key elements constituting the unjust enrichment of “no cause of the law ”, in order to solve this problem for theorists and practitioners A problem is helpful.