三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美芯?/H1>
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-08-19 11:36
【摘要】：三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美遣划?dāng)?shù)美ㄑ芯恐械囊粋�(gè)前沿和難點(diǎn)問(wèn)題,其學(xué)理思考較為晦澀艱深,Zimmermann教授稱(chēng)其為“遙遠(yuǎn)晦暗角落的令人生畏的灌木叢”,Visser教授稱(chēng)其極為“桀驁不馴”。三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美敲穹▽W(xué)理從參與不當(dāng)?shù)美申P(guān)系的當(dāng)事人數(shù)量角度提出的劃分和考察方法,是指那些在事實(shí)構(gòu)成上涉及到至少三個(gè)當(dāng)事人的情形下不當(dāng)?shù)美☉?yīng)當(dāng)如何適用的問(wèn)題,稱(chēng)其為“三人”主要是一種學(xué)術(shù)習(xí)慣。從其淵源流變來(lái)看,與三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美嘘P(guān)的理論形成了兩個(gè)大的流派,意思主義和衡平主義。意思主義原理起源于羅馬法請(qǐng)求返還之訴的意思主義清算方向,而后由德國(guó)民法學(xué)者維爾伯格、克雷默爾、克特爾、卡納里斯等一系列學(xué)者完成系統(tǒng)的理論總結(jié),其最顯著的特征是凸顯了當(dāng)事人目的意思的決定作用,按照當(dāng)事人的目的意思而在相反方向上決定不當(dāng)?shù)美颠�請(qǐng)求權(quán)的方向。意思主義與不當(dāng)?shù)美麑W(xué)理的區(qū)分說(shuō)相適應(yīng),是德國(guó)法和受德國(guó)法影響的我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法學(xué)上的通說(shuō)。在意思主義原理之下,三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美麑儆诓划?dāng)?shù)美南挛桓拍?涉及不當(dāng)?shù)美姆申P(guān)系被區(qū)分為給予(出捐)關(guān)系和給付關(guān)系,給付關(guān)系又可以分為對(duì)價(jià)關(guān)系和補(bǔ)償關(guān)系,給予與目的意思相結(jié)合才構(gòu)成給付,不當(dāng)?shù)美颠�一般在給付關(guān)系當(dāng)事人之間進(jìn)行,即在對(duì)價(jià)關(guān)系和補(bǔ)償關(guān)系中,給付障礙之所在即不當(dāng)?shù)美颠�之所在,原則上不允許穿透追索或雙重不當(dāng)?shù)美?qǐng)求權(quán)的存在。在少數(shù)例外情況下,才可以追索出捐關(guān)系或者間接得利。意思主義原理在兩人關(guān)系和三人關(guān)系中是相通的,又基于給付型不當(dāng)?shù)美麑?duì)非給付型不當(dāng)?shù)美膬?yōu)先性,從而意思主義構(gòu)成整個(gè)三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美幕A(chǔ)。意思主義原理之下的三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美膶W(xué)理分類(lèi)包括指示給付關(guān)系、給付連鎖等典型類(lèi)型。衡平主義主要起源自羅馬法的轉(zhuǎn)化物之訴,經(jīng)過(guò)中世紀(jì)的發(fā)展,一度在歐洲國(guó)家如奧地利、普魯士等非常興盛,法國(guó)最高上訴法院通過(guò)1892年Boudier案件判例,以三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美麨榛A(chǔ)塑造了不當(dāng)?shù)美ㄒ话阍瓌t,在日本法中也有許多三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美牡湫团欣�。衡平主義原理是與不當(dāng)?shù)美麑W(xué)理的統(tǒng)一說(shuō)(衡平說(shuō))相適應(yīng)的,其最顯著的特征是學(xué)理和司法實(shí)踐直接征引衡平等抽象觀念,它原則上準(zhǔn)許失利人超越直接給付關(guān)系而追索作為第三人的間接得利,也有學(xué)者稱(chēng)其為間接得利問(wèn)題,該追索行為在學(xué)理上稱(chēng)為飛躍追索、穿透追索等,英美法上稱(chēng)之為蛙跳式越級(jí)。法國(guó)法、比利時(shí)法屬于衡平主義的代表,當(dāng)代法國(guó)不當(dāng)?shù)美ㄊ怯煞莻鍍斣V和所得利益訴共同組成的,原則上承認(rèn)間接得利的追索,體現(xiàn)出濃厚的歷史傳統(tǒng)和教義的色彩。而源于其學(xué)理和司法實(shí)踐對(duì)抽象衡平觀念的青睞,當(dāng)代日本法兼具意思主義和衡平主義的特征。衡平主義原理之下的三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美膶W(xué)理分類(lèi)包括利益向第三人的無(wú)償轉(zhuǎn)得、以騙取的金錢(qián)利益進(jìn)行的清償、錯(cuò)誤匯兌、轉(zhuǎn)化物之訴(轉(zhuǎn)用物訴權(quán))等類(lèi)型。從當(dāng)前現(xiàn)狀來(lái)看,我國(guó)民法學(xué)理對(duì)三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美�缺乏系統(tǒng)的總結(jié)整理,對(duì)司法實(shí)踐中三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美囊呻y案件的解釋力也明顯不足。在學(xué)理上展開(kāi)對(duì)三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美难芯?對(duì)于豐富和發(fā)展我國(guó)不當(dāng)?shù)美ɡ碚撗芯�、推�?dòng)民法學(xué)的發(fā)展進(jìn)步、與不當(dāng)?shù)美麌?guó)際學(xué)術(shù)研究成果相互呼應(yīng)、為司法實(shí)踐提供學(xué)理指導(dǎo)、為民法典編纂提供智力儲(chǔ)備和支持等方面都具有重要意義。鑒于不當(dāng)?shù)美òl(fā)展的非線(xiàn)性特點(diǎn),我國(guó)民法典對(duì)三人關(guān)系型不當(dāng)?shù)美膶W(xué)理解釋和規(guī)則建構(gòu),不宜單方面采納某一種學(xué)理,而應(yīng)當(dāng)結(jié)合自身歷史發(fā)展和現(xiàn)實(shí)狀況,采取兼收并蓄、博采眾長(zhǎng)的態(tài)度,以意思主義為原則,但是在個(gè)別類(lèi)型領(lǐng)域可以允許衡平主義的存在,允許其對(duì)意思主義進(jìn)行適度的修正以實(shí)現(xiàn)在個(gè)案類(lèi)型中的個(gè)別正義,這些具體類(lèi)型應(yīng)當(dāng)以法律列舉的方式進(jìn)行規(guī)定,同時(shí)輔之以舉證責(zé)任要求,防止其過(guò)度擴(kuò)張而沖擊債權(quán)法、破產(chǎn)法秩序。這種做法,既可以充分發(fā)揮一般原則的作用并與意思自治的民法基本原則相適應(yīng),也可以為衡平主義留下發(fā)揮作用的空間。
[Abstract]:Three-person unjust enrichment is a frontier and difficult problem in the study of unjust enrichment law. Its academic thinking is rather obscure and difficult. Professor Zimmermann calls it "the awesome bush in the remote and dark corner", Professor Visser calls it extremely "unruly". Three-person unjust enrichment is the civil law theory from the participation of unjust enrichment. From the perspective of the number of the parties involved in the legal relationship of interests, the method of division and investigation refers to the question of how the unjust enrichment law should be applied when at least three parties are involved in the factual composition. Calling it "three persons" is mainly an academic habit. The doctrine originated from the direction of the doctrine of liquidation of the claim for return in Roman law, and was summarized systematically by German scholars such as Wilberg, Kramer, Kettle and Kanaris. The most prominent feature of the doctrine is its prominence. The decisive role of the party's intent is to determine the direction of the claim for undue enrichment in the opposite direction according to the party's intent. The doctrine of intentionalism is compatible with the doctrine of distinction between undue enrichment and intentionalism. It is a general doctrine of civil law in German law and Taiwan, China, which is influenced by German law. Unjust enrichment belongs to the subordinate concept of unjust enrichment. The legal relationship involving unjust enrichment is divided into the relationship of giving (donation) and the relationship of payment. The relationship of payment can be divided into the relationship of consideration and compensation. In the relationship of consideration and compensation, the obstacle of payment lies in the return of unjust enrichment. In principle, it is not allowed to penetrate the existence of recourse or double claim for unjust enrichment. The doctrine of intentionalism constitutes the basis of the whole three-person Relationship-type undue enrichment. The theoretical classification of the three-person Relationship-type undue enrichment under the doctrine of intentionalism includes typical types such as the directive-payment relationship and the chain of payment. After the development of the Middle Ages, the suit of things once flourished in European countries such as Austria, Prussia and so on. The French Supreme Court of Appeal established the general principle of unjust enrichment based on the three-person relationship unjust enrichment through the Boudier case in 1892. There are also many typical cases of unjust enrichment based on the three-person relationship in Japanese law. The principle of equitable doctrine is adapted to the theory of the unity of unjust enrichment (equitable doctrine). Its most prominent feature is that doctrine and judicial practice directly levy and weigh the abstract concept of equality. In principle, it allows the loser to go beyond the direct relationship of payment and pursue the indirect enrichment as a third party. Some scholars call it the problem of indirect enrichment. Behavior is called leaping pursuit, penetrating pursuit in theory, and leaping frog jump in Anglo-American law. French law, Belgian law belongs to the representative of equity. Contemporary unjust enrichment law in France is composed of non-debt liquidation litigation and interest litigation. In principle, it admits the pursuit of indirect enrichment, reflecting a strong historical tradition and doctrine. The doctrine of unjust enrichment of the three-person relationship under the principle of equity includes the free transfer of interests to a third person, the liquidation, misexchange, and transfer of deceived monetary interests. From the current situation, China's civil law theory is still lack of systematic summary and collation of three-person relationship unjust enrichment, and the interpretation of difficult cases of three-person relationship unjust enrichment in judicial practice is obviously inadequate. It is of great significance to develop the theoretical research of unjust enrichment law in China, promote the development and progress of civil law, echo the achievements of international academic research on unjust enrichment, provide academic guidance for judicial practice, and provide intellectual reserve and support for the compilation of civil code. The academic interpretation and rule construction of the unjust enrichment of the three-person relationship should not unilaterally adopt a certain doctrine, but should adopt an attitude of incorporating all the advantages of the masses, taking the doctrine of will as the principle, combining with its own historical development and actual situation, but allow the existence of equitable doctrine and its doctrine of will in certain types of fields. Appropriate amendments should be made to achieve individual justice in the types of cases. These specific types should be prescribed by way of legal enumeration, supplemented by the burden of proof, so as to prevent their excessive expansion from impacting the law of creditor's rights and the order of bankruptcy law. This approach can give full play to the role of general principles and civil law with autonomy of will. Adapting to the basic principles can also play a role in equity.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D913
，
本文編號(hào)：2191539
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2191539.html
[Abstract]:Three-person unjust enrichment is a frontier and difficult problem in the study of unjust enrichment law. Its academic thinking is rather obscure and difficult. Professor Zimmermann calls it "the awesome bush in the remote and dark corner", Professor Visser calls it extremely "unruly". Three-person unjust enrichment is the civil law theory from the participation of unjust enrichment. From the perspective of the number of the parties involved in the legal relationship of interests, the method of division and investigation refers to the question of how the unjust enrichment law should be applied when at least three parties are involved in the factual composition. Calling it "three persons" is mainly an academic habit. The doctrine originated from the direction of the doctrine of liquidation of the claim for return in Roman law, and was summarized systematically by German scholars such as Wilberg, Kramer, Kettle and Kanaris. The most prominent feature of the doctrine is its prominence. The decisive role of the party's intent is to determine the direction of the claim for undue enrichment in the opposite direction according to the party's intent. The doctrine of intentionalism is compatible with the doctrine of distinction between undue enrichment and intentionalism. It is a general doctrine of civil law in German law and Taiwan, China, which is influenced by German law. Unjust enrichment belongs to the subordinate concept of unjust enrichment. The legal relationship involving unjust enrichment is divided into the relationship of giving (donation) and the relationship of payment. The relationship of payment can be divided into the relationship of consideration and compensation. In the relationship of consideration and compensation, the obstacle of payment lies in the return of unjust enrichment. In principle, it is not allowed to penetrate the existence of recourse or double claim for unjust enrichment. The doctrine of intentionalism constitutes the basis of the whole three-person Relationship-type undue enrichment. The theoretical classification of the three-person Relationship-type undue enrichment under the doctrine of intentionalism includes typical types such as the directive-payment relationship and the chain of payment. After the development of the Middle Ages, the suit of things once flourished in European countries such as Austria, Prussia and so on. The French Supreme Court of Appeal established the general principle of unjust enrichment based on the three-person relationship unjust enrichment through the Boudier case in 1892. There are also many typical cases of unjust enrichment based on the three-person relationship in Japanese law. The principle of equitable doctrine is adapted to the theory of the unity of unjust enrichment (equitable doctrine). Its most prominent feature is that doctrine and judicial practice directly levy and weigh the abstract concept of equality. In principle, it allows the loser to go beyond the direct relationship of payment and pursue the indirect enrichment as a third party. Some scholars call it the problem of indirect enrichment. Behavior is called leaping pursuit, penetrating pursuit in theory, and leaping frog jump in Anglo-American law. French law, Belgian law belongs to the representative of equity. Contemporary unjust enrichment law in France is composed of non-debt liquidation litigation and interest litigation. In principle, it admits the pursuit of indirect enrichment, reflecting a strong historical tradition and doctrine. The doctrine of unjust enrichment of the three-person relationship under the principle of equity includes the free transfer of interests to a third person, the liquidation, misexchange, and transfer of deceived monetary interests. From the current situation, China's civil law theory is still lack of systematic summary and collation of three-person relationship unjust enrichment, and the interpretation of difficult cases of three-person relationship unjust enrichment in judicial practice is obviously inadequate. It is of great significance to develop the theoretical research of unjust enrichment law in China, promote the development and progress of civil law, echo the achievements of international academic research on unjust enrichment, provide academic guidance for judicial practice, and provide intellectual reserve and support for the compilation of civil code. The academic interpretation and rule construction of the unjust enrichment of the three-person relationship should not unilaterally adopt a certain doctrine, but should adopt an attitude of incorporating all the advantages of the masses, taking the doctrine of will as the principle, combining with its own historical development and actual situation, but allow the existence of equitable doctrine and its doctrine of will in certain types of fields. Appropriate amendments should be made to achieve individual justice in the types of cases. These specific types should be prescribed by way of legal enumeration, supplemented by the burden of proof, so as to prevent their excessive expansion from impacting the law of creditor's rights and the order of bankruptcy law. This approach can give full play to the role of general principles and civil law with autonomy of will. Adapting to the basic principles can also play a role in equity.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D913
，
本文編號(hào)：2191539
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2191539.html
最近更新
教材專(zhuān)著
