论文部分内容阅读
日本民法中的不当得利制度系借鉴德国民法和瑞士民法的规定设计而成,以衡平说居于重要地位,但随着实践的发展,类型论亦逐渐获得一定判例的支持,因此应当进一步从法律事实与纠纷解决的角度对不当得利制度进行深入研究。同时,“法律行为被认定为无效后的已给付利益清算”问题属于与非债清偿并列的“给付得利”中的典型问题。值得关注的是,近年来在日本民法(债权法)的修改过程中,有学者提出无效法律行为的效果将会对不当得利法的理论与实践产生重要影响,因此,厘清当事人行为的各异样态、被认定为无效的诸种原因、以及所涉及的受领给付返还原则、价额返还原则、约定对价的限度等问题及其之间的关系尤为必要。目前日本民法(债权法)修改方案中的相关条文设置无法有针对性地解决实践问题,故此,最有效的立法方式应当是先将概括性的一般规定作为不当得利返还请求权的基础性条文,然后再针对个别类型通过特则进行具体规定。
The unjust enrichment system in Japan’s civil law was designed from the perspectives of German civil law and Swiss civil law, with an emphasis on balance. However, with the development of practice, the theory of type has gradually gained some precedent support and should be further studied from the law Facts and Dispute Resolution Perspectives Undertaking profit-making system in-depth study. At the same time, the issue of liquidation of interests paid after the legal act has been determined to be invalid is typical of the issue of benefits payable in parallel with non-debt repayment. What deserves our attention is that in the process of revising Japanese civil law (creditor’s rights law) in recent years, some scholars have proposed that the effect of invalid legal act will have a significant influence on the theory and practice of improper-profit-making law. Therefore, State, the reasons for the invalidation, the principle of the return of the recipients, the principle of the return of the price, the limit of the agreed price and so on, are especially necessary. So far, the most effective legislative approach should be to take the broad general provisions as the basic provision for the right to refund unjust enrichment , And then specific rules for specific types through the rules.