Influence Of Subjective Fault For The Return Of Unjust Enrichment Range

Unjust enrichment system originated in Roman law, though there are already thousands of years of legal origin, Germany, China and France scientist Marken Sinise(Markesinis) for unjust enrichment has a wonderful metaphor, "unjust enrichment if Rome goalkeeper Adams(Janus) Gu then hope it before, while he watched the contracts to wipe it overflows; side glued to the infringement, to satisfied their heritage; farther corner of my eye and its property. "While various countries and regions of the unjust enrichment of the specific provisions vary, but all agree that unjust enrichment is no legal basis to acquire benefits and cause damage to others, the interests of the beneficiaries should be returned to the injured party suffered. The legal relationship between the two is the relationship between credit and debt, the injured party is entitled to request the return of unjust enrichment claims beneficiary, the beneficiary is obliged to return the debt to the other side of unjust enrichment. At present, China’s importance for unjust enrichment is not enough, from the legislative origins speaking, only one of an explanation that Civil Code section 92 and the Supreme Court, "China through opinions" 131. The reasons are: a perfect legal system of modern society, for all kinds of acts of civil activity has special regulations, unjust enrichment as a fallback system, it is difficult to play an active role. 2, as a civil system, unjust enrichment applies finds larger more academic debate on the subjective. 3, the lack of institutional support, judges often use other alternative systems or principles, combined with the less afraid sentenced to more cases, more difficult from fewer cases summarized, resulting in a vicious cycle.This article will focus on the state as a breakthrough from the beneficiary subjective analysis of unjust enrichment "benefit" of the classification, the return of the object, scope and other aspects of return analysis, combined with the problem of judicial practice encountered in research.