【摘要】：侵權(quán)獲益賠償是作為一種新型的利益平衡方式,其要旨并不僅僅是填補(bǔ)受害入之損失或者單純地懲罰行為人之侵權(quán)行為。其目的是為了建立和完善符合社會(huì)或他人之利益平衡及侵權(quán)法功能之完備。但是長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)隨著部分人身權(quán)商品化之加速,使得侵權(quán)人實(shí)施加害行為后獲得巨大利益,在法律體系中將其作為損害賠償?shù)挠?jì)算方式或者補(bǔ)充方式。在實(shí)踐中由于對(duì)這一問(wèn)題的界定不清,使得在請(qǐng)求獲益賠償時(shí)九成的案件都是因獲益事實(shí)確定之不清使得加害入保有其利益得不到有效的規(guī)制。因此對(duì)侵權(quán)獲益賠償之研究具備理論和實(shí)踐意義。 侵權(quán)獲益賠償之情形,在我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法中有著濃厚的體現(xiàn),在侵權(quán)人因侵權(quán)獲益之情形,損害賠償之適用使得侵權(quán)僅僅變成一種支付,不能有效威懾及嚇阻侵權(quán)人及第三人。不當(dāng)?shù)美m用囿于時(shí)效及構(gòu)成要件之困境。而將獲益賠償作為獨(dú)立的請(qǐng)求之類(lèi)型,因其具備損害賠償之歸責(zé)及不當(dāng)?shù)美Ч?使得二者融合成之間的過(guò)渡地帶,從其構(gòu)成要件來(lái)分析具備其自身之獨(dú)立性與特殊性。 從制度間的構(gòu)造來(lái)看,其區(qū)別于不當(dāng)?shù)美安环o(wú)因管理。不當(dāng)?shù)美袡?quán)益侵害型不當(dāng)?shù)美诶嬷颠�效果有著與侵權(quán)獲益賠償大相徑庭之效果,但是不當(dāng)?shù)美洳⒉灰赃^(guò)錯(cuò)及違法性作為其構(gòu)成要件,那么在侵權(quán)情形下適用不當(dāng)?shù)美?guī)定困于其理論基礎(chǔ)。而不法無(wú)因管理之情形也是類(lèi)推使用不當(dāng)?shù)美Ч?只是在扣減相應(yīng)費(fèi)用時(shí)作為侵權(quán)獲益賠償之參考,并不能體現(xiàn)獲益之基礎(chǔ)。因此,將侵權(quán)獲益賠償作為獨(dú)立請(qǐng)求權(quán)具有現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。 從我國(guó)現(xiàn)有法律體系中探究侵權(quán)獲益賠償之情形,《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第20條對(duì)其適用范圍及適用的規(guī)則并不能實(shí)現(xiàn)侵權(quán)獲益賠償之功能,另外在舉證責(zé)任承擔(dān)方面也是存在一定瑕疵,較權(quán)利人而言侵權(quán)人之獲益使其處于有利地位,因此舉證責(zé)任之倒置更能對(duì)其獲益之剝奪及相關(guān)費(fèi)用之扣減發(fā)揮效率之功能。另外在實(shí)踐中,即便存在獲益但是從現(xiàn)行制度看,對(duì)獲益事實(shí)之認(rèn)定及數(shù)額之確定也是完全依照損害賠償之規(guī)則,并不能完全體現(xiàn)侵權(quán)獲益賠償之內(nèi)涵。因此,對(duì)該項(xiàng)制度的完善及突破使得其在法益保護(hù)于行為自由的博弈要素中占據(jù)自己一定的地位并發(fā)揮作用。
[Abstract]:As a new way of balancing interests, compensation for tort benefits is not only to compensate for the loss of the victims or simply punish the torts of the perpetrators. Its purpose is to establish and perfect the balance of interests of society or others and the perfection of the function of tort law. However, along with the acceleration of commercialization of some personal rights for a long time, the infringer has obtained great benefits after carrying out the injurious act, which is regarded as the method of calculating or supplementing the compensation for damages in the legal system. In practice, because of the unclear definition of this problem, 90% of the cases in the claim for benefit compensation are due to the benefit facts are not clear, so that the benefit of the insurance can not be effectively regulated. Therefore, the study of tort compensation has theoretical and practical significance. The situation of compensation for infringement gains is strongly reflected in the intellectual property law of our country. In the case where the infringer benefits from the infringement, the application of damages makes the infringement only become a kind of payment, which can not effectively deter and deter the infringer and the third party. The application of improper enrichment is limited to the dilemma of limitation and constitutive elements. As the type of independent request, the benefit compensation has the effect of imputation of damages and improper enrichment, which makes them merge into the transition zone between them, and analyze their own independence and particularity from its constituent elements. From the structure of the system, it is different from improper enrichment and illegal management. In the improper enrichment, the effect of the unjust enrichment is different from the compensation for the infringement, but the improper enrichment does not take fault and illegality as its constituent elements. So the application of unjust enrichment in the case of tort is limited to its theoretical basis. The situation of illegal management without cause is also the result of analogizing improper enrichment. It is only used as the reference of tort benefit compensation when deducting the corresponding expenses, and it can not reflect the basis of benefit. Therefore, it is of practical significance to regard tort compensation as an independent right of claim. The article 20 of the Tort liability Law can not realize the function of compensation for the benefit of infringement by probing into the situation of compensation for tort benefit from the existing legal system of our country, the scope of application and the applicable rules of Article 20 of the Tort liability Law. In addition, there are some defects in the burden of proof, which is better than the benefit of the infringer, so the inversion of the burden of proof can play an efficient role in the deprivation of their benefits and the deduction of related expenses. In addition, in practice, even if there is benefit but from the current system, the determination of the fact of benefit and the determination of the amount is also completely in accordance with the rules of compensation for damages, can not fully reflect the connotation of tort compensation. Therefore, the perfection and breakthrough of this system make it occupy its own position and play a role in the game element of legal interests protecting the freedom of behavior.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 幸顏靜;;不當(dāng)?shù)美贫纫牲c(diǎn)探析[J];比較法研究;2005年06期

2 程嘯;侵權(quán)法中“違法性”概念的產(chǎn)生原因[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年01期

3 楊彪;;受益型侵權(quán)行為研究——兼論損害賠償法的晚近發(fā)展[J];法商研究;2009年05期

4 孫良國(guó);;人身權(quán)侵權(quán)獲益賠償?shù)臉?gòu)成要件及其適用——兼評(píng)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法草案(三審稿)》第20條[J];法學(xué);2009年12期

5 左傳衛(wèi);;權(quán)益侵害型不當(dāng)?shù)美此糩J];法學(xué);2010年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：2295932