Distribution Of The Burden Of Proof In "No Legal Reasons" Of Unjust Enrichment

From the "Civil Law" provisions of Article 92 we can know that there are our constituent elements in unjust enrichment dispute :(1) A party obtaining property interests;(2) the other party suffered losses;(3) existing causation between obtaining property interests and suffered losses;(4) benefiting without a lawful basis. Common theory says that the party, asking for unjust enrichment claims,(hereinafter referred to the claimant) bears the burden of proof in the first three constituent elements.While "no legal reasons" is debatable. The law of our country has no specific provision, so in judge practice, the outcomes in the trial of unjust enrichment are different and the academic community to this problem also exists a different understanding. Obviously the burden of proof of "no legal reasons" is not only the core in the case of unjust enrichment, but also the difficulty. In the contrast, the research and application of extraterritorial unjust enrichment is more mature. Therefore, we can learn from Germany, Japan and Taiwan of China in legislation and theories. Unjust enrichment can be divided into two parts, payment unjust enrichment and non-payment unjust enrichment. With further refine and research on this basis, we can have a better understanding of the burden of proof of "no legal reasons" elements in the case of unjust enrichment.Payment unjust enrichment is mainly about the unjust enrichment dispute of the lack of payment purposes. Payment behavior is caused by claimant, so he must know that the behavior of the fact that the lack of purpose.Meanwhile in order to protect the stability of the property, when claimant requests to return the property, he should burden the responsibility to prove "no legal reasons" element. However, sometimes "no legal reasons" is expressed as a negative element of fact, if the claimant is requested to prove all the facts fully, it is too hard in a logical opinion. In order to ease the burden of proof borne by the claimant overweight, we can ask the benefit of one party(hereinafter referred to the beneficiary) reasonable and detailed description.Under this premise, the claimant should propose beneficiaries of defenses to refute and prove. If the beneficiary does not perform or do not actively fulfill the specific accountability, we can directly in accordance with the "rules of evidence" Article 8 of admission shall be considered as the beneficiary is not conducive to the fact that the claimant had advocated recognition in this case.Then the claimant don’t have to prove the "no legal reasons" element, which is the key constituent elements of proof.Non-payment unjust enrichment is attributable primarily to protect property interests. In the non-payment due to claimant’s behavior, although the behavior of the person requests the lack of real intention, the claimant as the body of property interest, he should bear the burden of proof,which is in line with the principles of autonomy and self-responsibility in the authenticity of the facts are unclear. In the contrast, in the non-payment unjust enrichment due to the reason of non-human behavior, there are several reasons for changes in the general property interests,such as acting of beneficiary or third party, events, and the law, without claimant’s behavior. At this time at this time, "no legal reasons" element is closer to a negative fact. The difficulty of the claimant bearing the burden of proof becomes larger. Since the beneficiary is in the whole process of the change in the property, who is easier for him to provide that his benefits are based on legitimate, compared with the claimant. Therefore, the beneficiary should take the responsible to bear the burden of proof,which is more appropriate.