Study On The Scope Of Return Of Unjust Enrichment

As an important reason for the occurrence of unjust enrichment,it is of great significance to adjust the changes of property without lawful reasons.Once the unjust enrichment has been established,the determination of the scope of its return is the key to the realization of unjust enrichment.Although there is consensus in the academic theory,it is believed that the specific return range should be determined by the parties' subjective goodwill and malice,but it is not clear why the subjective status of the party should not be considered in the formation of unjust enrichment but should be considered in determining the return scope.In addition,in the judicial practice,the court should consider who the subjective state should be when inspecting the subjective state of the parties and how to inspect them.Therefore,it is of great theoretical and practical significance to determine the specific scope of the return of unjust enrichment based on the subjective status of the parties concerned.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,this article is divided into four parts:The first part: the determination of the subjective status of the parties and the scope of return of unjust enrichment.This section mainly includes the determination of the subjective status of the beneficiaries and the aggrieved persons and the scope of return of unjust enrichment.By examining the subjective state of the beneficiaries,by analyzing the types of the current typical debt,that is,the contractual,infringement and indebtedness management,we find that the debtor's subjective status plays a key role in the commitment of the debt,On the assumption of debts,the debtor's subjective state must be considered.By analyzing the function of the unjust enrichment system in determining the attribution of interests and preventing unlawful behavior,it is considered that the functional requirements of the unjust enrichment system should consider the subjective state of the beneficiaries.Regarding the investigation of the subjective state of the aggrieved person and the requirement of removing the function according to the system of improper profits,it is necessary to examine whether the interests received by the beneficiary are legitimate and not to examine the subjective state of the injured person The conclusion that the imputability of the injured person has no effect on the return scope.To answer the question of “who's subjective state should be examined when determining the scope of return”.The second part: beneficiary malicious intention identification.The subjective state of beneficiaries should be distinguished by "goodwill" and "malice".Through comparative analysis and semantic analysis of goodwill and malice,we think that we should take the legal reason of "knowing and not knowing" and the standard of bad faith in goodwill.At the same time,the effect of negligence on "knowledge and unknown" should be considered.That is,due to gross negligence,without knowing the legal reason,liability for the return of malicious beneficiaries should be assumed.In addition,the methods of identifying "unknown and unknown" and "gross negligence" are given.Finally,the method of identification is given by means of goodwill and malice toward legal persons,minors,adults who restrict the capacity for civil conduct and special subjects who intend to act as agents.That is,how to identify the subjective status of beneficiaries.Part ?: Bona fide beneficiaries return responsibility.This section explores the return of bona fide beneficiaries,the determination of existent interests,the deduction of harm done by bona fide beneficiaries and the problem of unjust enrichment in dual-service contracts.Through the current legislation in all regions and regions on unjust enrichment and the development of science and technology,the "existing interest" is borrowed for its return.Through the analysis of existing interests and damages,the factors that affect the specific return scope of bona fide beneficiaries are clearly identified.Finally,through the combing of unjust enrichment doctrine on the dual-service contract,I get the author's opinion on the improper profit-making of the dual-service contract.Part ?: Malicious beneficiaries return responsibility.This section examines the specific scope of the vicious beneficiary's heavier return obligation,which is the return of the benefits received at the time of takeover,the additional interest,the damages,and the deduction of damage to the malicious beneficiary's property.And further analysis of the first beneficiaries of goodwill and then converted into a malicious beneficiary approach.