Study On The Types Of Unjust Enrichment

Unjust enrichment refers to the fact that there is no legal reason for others to suffer losses and gain benefits for themselves.The beneficiaries who obtain benefits should return all benefits to the victims who suffer losses.Unjust enrichment,as one of the causes of debt,constitutes an important system in civil law.The system of unjust enrichment originated from Roman law at the earliest.The Roman law did not establish the system of unjust enrichment,but determined several kinds of litigation rights to realize the return of unjust enrichment.However,the study of the system of unjust enrichment in Roman law played an important role in the development of the system of unjust enrichment.In the legislation of the system of improper enrichment in the countries of continental law system,although most of them adopt the principle of general legislation,they still adopt the theory of non-uniformity in theory and judicial practice and classify the system of improper enrichment.As the system of unjust enrichment is generally stipulated in the legislation of various countries,it is necessary to make a typological analysis of unjust enrichment in judicial practice,thus forming two different theories,"unification theory" and "non-unification theory".Because our country's unjust enrichment legislation is simple,only one legal provision has made general provisions on the unjust enrichment system,so the principle of unjust enrichment legislation can not satisfy the application of the unjust enrichment system in judicial practice.Therefore,the author chooses the research direction of the typification of unjust enrichment,compares the legislation and jurisprudence of other civil law countries and common law countries,combines the theoretical basis and judicial practice of the typification of unjust enrichment,and solves the problems of the system of unjust enrichment in our judicial practice.Firstly,this paper introduces the background and purpose of the research on the typification of unjust enrichment,as well as the research status at home and abroad.China's legislation on unjust enrichment system is too simple to solve the problems in judicial practice,so the author aims to study the construction of unjust enrichmentsystem through typification.Combining with the research status at home and abroad,we can find that the general view adopted by scholars at present is to classify unjust enrichment into two types,namely,payment-type unjust enrichment and non-payment-type unjust enrichment,according to the causes of unjust enrichment.By studying the legislation of improper enrichment in civil law countries and the historical development process of improper enrichment in Anglo-American law system,the author finds that the earliest unjust enrichment in Roman law is the improper enrichment of payment type.With the development of society and the evolution of law,it gradually forms the improper enrichment of non-payment type.By comparing the legislative provisions of the countries of continental law system,although the principle of general legislation is generally adopted,it is decided by the legislative design,and the unjust enrichment has been typified in theory and judicial practice.Secondly,the author mainly studies the theoretical basis of the typification of unjust enrichment.By comparing the disputes between the unification and non-unification of unjust enrichment,the author believes that the unjust enrichment should be divided into two types: performance-based unjust enrichment and non-performance-based unjust enrichment,starting from the actual causes of the occurrence of unjust enrichment.By comparing the causes,specific types and constituent elements of the unjust enrichment of payment and non-payment,we can find that there are obvious differences between them.We should make a distinction between them and construct our unjust enrichment system by typification.Finally,through the analysis of the application of unjust enrichment cases in China's judicial practice,the author finds that the main problems are the inconsistency of causation determination standards and the confusion of burden of proof distribution.By differentiating the causality and burden of proof of different types of unjust enrichment,the author can clarify the object and scope of the return of unjust enrichment,which is conducive to a fair and fair trial of cases.