| The traditional view holds that for the relief of the deposit rights and interests of incorrect remitters,they only need to claim unjust enrichment claims in order to protect their own rights and interests.However,due to the frozen status of the recipient’s account and the loss of fulfillment ability,even if the recipient is willing to voluntarily return the wrong remittance item during execution,it is objectively difficult to achieve.At this point,there are significant differences in practice regarding whether the wrong remitter can request the exclusion of court enforcement of the wrong remittance through the execution of the objection procedure.Specifically,there are differences in the judgment of the nature of deposit rights and interests between "property rights" and "creditor’s rights" when the court hears cases of objection to incorrect remittance execution;There is a contradiction between the two perspectives of "priority return" and "equal return" in the choice of the concept of relief for deposit rights and interests;There are issues of "inconsistent standards" and "poor effectiveness" in the application of the relief path for deposit rights.The reasons for the above problems can include the following aspects: firstly,the deposit currency itself has its own particularity,which combines the characteristics of "property rights" and "creditor’s rights",and its nature of rights is difficult to be simply defined as property rights or creditor’s rights;Secondly,the principle of "currency possession is ownership" applicable to currency circulation focuses on the guarantee of currency circulation,and does not rely on the authenticity and legality of transactions as the basis for determining currency ownership;Thirdly,theoretically,there is no possibility of prioritizing the return of funds in the path of debt relief;Fourthly,the path of property rights based remedies lacks legitimacy in theory and norms,making it impossible to unify its application standards.In order to rebuild the relief path for China’s deposit rights and solve the problem of difficult relief for erroneous remittances during execution,firstly,it is necessary to learn from the beneficial experiences of the "pseudo trust" and "priority system" in Britain and America,as well as the theory of the right to request the return of property rights in Germany,and formally establish the concept of priority return of deposit currency;Secondly,it is necessary to demonstrate the nature of the deposit currency as a "creditor’s property right",in order to clear the theoretical obstacles for the application of property right relief theory and the construction of priority return rules;Finally,it is necessary to examine the applicable prerequisites and exceptions of the principle of currency possession as ownership,clarify the specific identification standards and priority return conditions of deposit currency,and construct rules for priority return of deposit currency.Specifically,as long as the erroneous remittance item meets the conditions of "non circulating account and remittance record specialization",the remitter can exclude the application of the "currency possession is all" principle,and by revoking the erroneous remittance behavior,claim the right to return property rights to the unauthorized holder of the currency within the "minimum intermediate balance" range. |
