Analysis On The Distributional Genres Of Unjust Enrichment And Its Burden Of Proof

Throughout China's judicial background on unjust enrichment,it is not difficult to find two particularly prominent problems.One is that there are few legal provisions on unjust enrichment.The other is that more and more litigant subjects bring unjust enrichment suits to people's courts on the grounds of unjust enrichment.These two prominent problems have led to a result.People's courts have accepted more and more unjust enrichment litigation.However,due to the lack of a unified trial criteria and standards,the understanding of courts and even different judges in the same court is not the same,and the trial results are quite different.In addition,with the development of economy,the way of economic interests moving among different subjects is becoming more and more frequent and complex.The litigants tend to be deterred from the complex way of interest interaction,and tend to bring a lawsuit on the ground of unjust enrichment rather than the most basic legal relationship.In legal practice,this is more reflected in the lawsuit subject's malicious prosecution of unjust enrichment.These prominent problems have been plagued by the litigation participants including judges,lawyers and litigants,and China's Civil Code is in the process of formulation,the study of unjust enrichment is obviously particularly important.As a judicial worker,the author has represented several cases of unjust enrichment disputes,and found that the root of the problem is that there is no uniform standard for the specific circumstances of unjust enrichment,and there is no uniform distribution of the burden of proof in unjust enrichment litigation,especially in the most important fact of flno legal basis".Standards,the judge's discretion is enormous,some courts even directly take a one-size-fits-all approach,direct trial internal provisions "no legal basis”for the burden of proof all plaintiff or all by the defendant.Such a lack of uniform standard of judicial action seriously harmed the authority and justice of the judiciary.According to several cases of unjust enrichment represented by the author,the most important point of disputes is the burden of proof.There are few disputes on the burden of proof concerning "one party gains benefit","the other party suffers loss","the gains benefit and the losses have causal relationship",and they tend to advocate unjust enrichment as a whole.The party will bear the burden of proof,while the burden of proof on "no legal basis" is quite controversial.Unjust enrichment,as a kind of ordinary civil litigation,does not have its special burden of proof distribution.According to the general rules of proof,we can make a preliminary judgment.But if we do not differentiate the types of unjust enrichment,we will still come to the embarrassing situation of "one size fits all".In this paper,the burden of proof for unjust enrichment analysis mainly from the general rules of proof,when involved in complex issues,and then use the method of typological analysis to further demonstrate,in order to achieve the litigant's proof ability is not too wide disparity,and in this process of argument and analysis put forward my own suggestions.This article mainly refers to the type analysis of unjust enrichment in German Civil Code,China's Taiwan unjust enrichment system and other types of unjust enrichment,the analysis process will be interlaced with the relevant judicial cases.Through the argumentation research in this paper,we hope to benefit the handling of cases of unjust enrichment in judicial practice.