Study On The Obligation Of Compensation Of Beneficiary

Article 183 of General Provisions of the Civil Law inherits the old example of Article 23 of the Tort Law,which provides a remedy for those who suffer damage due to the protection of others.This provision specifically responds to the issue of protecting the rights and interests of those who protect others bravely for just causes.There are still some difficulties in applying this article.First,the nature of the obligation of compensation of beneficiary in this article has been the focus of debate in the academic community.From the perspective of cost interpretation,the nature of the obligation of compensation of beneficiary is the special negotiorum gestio.The difference between it and the general negotiorum gestio is that the former is applicable to certain adversarial protective acts,and the latter is applicable to administrative acts without adversarial requirements.The former may have an infringer as a source of relief for the victims.The latter usually does not involve third-party infringement;the main form of damage to the former victims is damage to civil rights such as the right to health,and the latter's administrator usually only has expenses.According to the requirements of the obligation of compensation of beneficiary,in the case of the infringer's intervention,the beneficiary should assume the second order of supplementary responsibility instead of direct responsibility,which is in line with the concept of fairness and justice.Second,the factual composition of Article 183 of General Provisions of the Civil Law should be clarified.The so-called "others" include both natural and legal persons,as well as the state and collectives.The so-called "beneficiary" may be more than one when there are multiple subjective attributions in the protection,and the beneficiary should be given a loose interpretation,including situations that may benefit.The so-called "victims" can be minors,foreigners and stateless persons,but do not include damaged third parties.The so-called "protection" refers to the urgency and danger of victim's action.It also includes the situation where the victim protects the beneficiary according to legal or agreed obligations,and does not rule out taking into account his own interests.The so-called "civil rights and interests" refers only to legitimate interests,and its connotation has become increasingly rich with the development of society.The so-called "damage" refers to the actual uninteresting consequences of victim,and it should include the damage to the property rights resulting from the protection.The so-called "cause" requires that there is a causal relationship betweendamage and protection,and the judgment standard can refer to the causal relationship judgment in the tort law.The two sentences of Article 183 correspond to two levels of its legal effect.According to the first sentence of Article 183,in the case of an infringer,the infringer shall bear the liability for damages.At this time,the beneficiary has an unreal obligation to properly compensate the victim.The obligation is not based on the victim's request,but the beneficiary took the initiative to do so,because the victim's damage had been filled out.If the infringer cannot fully compensate the victim's damage,or the infringer escapes,or there is no infringement at all,according to the second sentence of Article 183,the victim may request appropriate compensation from the beneficiary.This obligation of compensation is different from the other one in the first sentence.It is a real obligation.Its application requires the victim to prove that the tort liability is absent.The scope of compensation is no longer determined voluntarily by the beneficiary,but is determined by the judge.If the parties reach an agreement on the scope of compensation,the judge shall respect it.If no agreement is reached,the judge needs to analyze the case individually,taking into account factors such as how much the victim has suffered,how much the beneficiary has benefited,the economic status of the two parties,and whether the two parties are at fault for the occurrence of the damage.The application of Article 183 should be well connected with relevant laws and regulations.In the case of the intersection with Articles 181 and 182,the rights and interests of the victim can be better protected through the interpretation of the damage and the judgment of causality.In the case of an intersection with Article 184,it should be included as one of the factors in the consideration of the scope of compensation.It should be recognized that in order to achieve comprehensive protection for those who protect others bravely for just causes,we cannot only rely on the compensation of infringer and beneficiary to overcome the limitations of private law relief.The fundamental solution is to unblock the diversified relief channels.