不当得利法中的给付概念研究

发布时间：2018-03-27 14:14

  本文选题：不当得利　切入点：给付概念　出处：《南京大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：不当得利法是整个民法中十分重要的一项法律制度。但在我国《民法通则》中,关于不当得利制度仅有一条规定,而相关司法解释也只有一条。因立法过于简陋,司法实务界对其理解不深,导致了实务裁判过程中,类似案件都会有不同的裁判观点。在本文列举的数个给付型不当得利案例中,实务界对基本的给付概念就存在着不同的看法,从而产生了不同的裁判结果。所以本文就以列举案例中的问题为线索,深入分析不当得利法中的给付概念。从整个不当得利法来看,虽然不当得利制度是一项古老的制度,但通过给付概念来对其进行二元划分的观点却很晚才产生。在不当得利法发展过程中,学者们先是提炼了数量众多的不当得利请求权,继而理论上逐渐用一个一般条款来对不当得利法进行整合。到了20世纪,威尔伯格和克默雷尔提出了非统一说,即以给付概念将不当得利区分为给付型不当得利和非给付型不当得利。这种观点不仅使两种类型的不当得利可以和民法上的其他制度相衔接,还可以在两种类型下建构具体的不当得利类型。就此而言,给付概念对于不当得利制度具有极为重要的价值。在债法领域,与给付相类似的概念还有给予、履行和清偿。学者们往往对其区别看待,并提出了概念区分的理由。但本文认为,除给予外,给付与履行、清偿本质上是一回事,只是观察的角度略有不同。对于不当得利法中给付概念的法律性质,学者提出了众多的学说,比如法律行为说、事实行为说、折中说等,而法律行为说中还细分为契约说、单方行为说、契约或单方行为说。面对如此众多的理论学说,本文对其中最为主要的两个学说观点—事实清偿效果说和确定清偿目的的单方行为说进行了评判,着重分析了这两个学说各自存在的缺陷。之后,本文认为,在不当得利中,给付概念应该坚持契约说的观点,并给出了相应的理由。就在部分学者运用给付概念来发展不当得利理论的同时,坚持统一说观点的学者也一直在批评给付概念存在着“概念法学”的倾向,德国最高法院的立场也时有变动,给付概念面临着困境。本文认为,对于不当得利法中给付概念的困境,应该从德国民法方法论中寻找答案。虽然概念法学自20世纪以来饱受学者们诟病,但我们同样知道,概念法学创设的概念体系有助于法律体系的建立和司法实务界的适用,对于法律的稳定性有很大的帮助。当然,我们不否认概念逻辑的操作有时是不符合案件的整体价值和社会正义的目标。因此,在概念法学之后,利益法学派和价值法学派纷纷提出了相应的解决办法,以消除概念法学的弊病。然而,这两大学派提出的观点并没有深厚理论工具的支撑,也没有形成一套稳定可靠的评价标准。本文认为,对于两大学派提出的观点,应该从经济学角度进行合理化论证。就给付概念而言,逻辑化的概念操作在不利于个案的公平正义时,可以用信赖保护原则来处理具体的案例,在一些特殊的领域,甚至可以通过信赖保护原则发展出具体的法律制度。但是信赖保护原则的运用及相应制度的形成,必须通过经济分析来进行理论说明,这是维护法律稳定性的需要。
[Abstract]:The unjust enrichment law is a legal system is very important in the whole civil law. But in our country, "civil law", on the unjust enrichment system is only a requirement, and the relevant judicial explanation is only one. Because the legislation is too simple, the judicial practice of the understanding is not deep, resulting in the course of practice similar cases, will have a different point of view. The referee in a number of payment type of unjust enrichment in the case cited in this paper, the practice of the basic concept of payment there are different views, resulting in different judgment. So this paper enumerates the problems in the case as a clue, in-depth analysis of the unjust enrichment law the concept of payment from the unjust enrichment law, although the unjust enrichment system is an old system, but through the payment of two yuan to the concept of division of the view is very late. In the development process of the unjust enrichment method, The scholars first refined a number of unjust enrichment claim, then the theory gradually with a general clause to integrate the unjust enrichment method. By twentieth Century, Wilberg and Caemmerer put forward non unity, namely to pay concept of dividing unjust enrichment into payment and non payment unjust enrichment. This view not only makes two types of unjust enrichment and other civil law system convergence, but also construct specific types of unjust enrichment in two types. With regard to payment, the concept is extremely important to the system of unjust enrichment. In the law of obligation, similar to the concept of payment and performance, and settlement. Scholars tend to see the difference, and put forward the concept of distinguishing reason. But this article believes that, in addition to payment and settlement, performance, essence is one thing, just observe the 瑙掑害鐣ユ湁涓嶅悓.瀵逛簬涓嶅綋寰楀埄娉曚腑缁欎粯姒傚康鐨勬硶寰嬫，

本文编号：1671861