An Empirical Study On The Distribution Of Burden Of Proof In Unjust Enrichment Litigation

In the years of rapid development in China,my country’s economy has been developing at a high speed.People’s economic contacts have become more frequent,and there have been more and more disputes.Under such a general environment,the role of the unjust enrichment system is also It’s increasingly obvious.There are many civil legal systems,and the unjust enrichment system plays a key role in it.Its main role is to adjust the property exchanges between parties outside of the legal provisions.As the unjust enrichment system is "imported",it starts late in China and develops slowly.It is difficult to apply in judicial practice,especially the distribution of burden of proof of "profit without legal basis".With the frequent and complex social and economic exchanges,the number of unjust enrichment cases has been increasing year by year in recent years.There is no clear guidance for the distribution of burden of proof of the elements of "profit without legal basis" in legislation,which makes the final judgment of similar cases different.In the long run,judicial impartiality and authority will be challenged.Therefore,it is necessary to coordinate the contradiction of "profit without legal basis",so as to share more burden of proof and give full play to the role of unjust enrichment system.It is necessary to find and solve problems from the existing real cases.The empirical research method is the legal argumentation method adopted in this article,and the application of the method relies on typical cases in judicial practice in my country.By selecting a relatively large number of samples and conducting empirical analysis on the data,it is possible to summarize and analyze the defects of the unjust enrichment system in terms of the burden of proof.It is hoped that it can provide certain data support and empirical reference for the distribution of unjust enrichment proof liability and the improvement of the unjust enrichment system.In the empirical part,the author analyzes the application of unjust enrichment cases,the difference between the subjects who bear the burden of proof and the judgment results,the change of the subjects who bear the burden of proof,the application of the theory of unjust enrichment types in practice and the selection of the cause of action in unjust enrichment litigation,and finds that there are some problems in the distribution of unjust enrichment burden of proof In specific cases,the distribution rules of burden of proof are inconsistent,the meaning of burden of proof and burden of proof is not clear,the relevant standards of proof are not the same,it is difficult to prove in litigation,and other types of cases intersect with unjust enrichment cases.Starting from these problems,this paper analyzes the causes and thinks that the burden of proof should be distributed according to different types: if it is a case of payment type unjust enrichment,the claimant should bear the burden of proof in the case of "profit without legal basis" in unjust enrichment;if it is a case of non payment type unjust enrichment,it should be the focus of interest transfer If this does not involve the behavior of the requesting party,the beneficiary bears the burden of proof.If the legal rules and events cause this burden,the claimant of the requesting party bears the burden of proof.At the same time,we should make clear the difference between the burden of proof and the burden of proof,make the judge’s power of interpretation public,optimize the level of the standard of proof,and use the judge’s power of investigation and evidence collection at the right time.