Research On The Allocation System Of "No Legal Basis" Burden Of Proof In Unjust Enrichment

Unjustified Enrichment,without a lawful basis and by profit,and cause damage to others,should bear the return obligations.The four elements of Unjustified Enrichment,"a party to obtain benefits," counterparty losses,"made interests suffer a causal relationship between the loss of the concept is clear and in most cases by external The facts show it,the parties easily be proved by evidence.Furthermore,these three elements in the authenticity of the unknown,the allocation of this burden of proof to the Unjustified Enrichment impaired people are not controversial commitments in practice and academia.But in our judicial practice,all over the court for Unjustified Enrichment "without lawful according to the constituent elements" of the allocation of the burden of proof is considerable disagreement.Some courts require to bear their own benefit have legitimate according to the burden of proof by the Unjustified Enrichment of the benefit side,the defendant in the case.Some courts require the injured party by Unjustified Enrichment,the plaintiff of the case,effectively prove that the other party_Unjustified Enrichment,the plaintiff will bear the burden of proof if the authenticity of the unknown.Accordingly,the paper focuses on "why the allocation of the burden of proof of Unjustified Enrichment dispute?" Commencement of this problem,the main line of reason analysis,analysis of the distribution of the burden of proof,and Unjustified Enrichment Double Vision reasons to explore the judicial practice the root cause of the dispute.,Learn from foreign experience in doctrine,and the reasons for these controversial proposed an improvement on the Unjustified Enrichment "without lawful" Elements of the burden of proof allocation path.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the total is divided into four chapters,a total of thirty thousand words.Chapter start from the conceptual point of view,and briefly discusses the concepts and elements of Unjustified Enrichment,the burden of proof allocation of responsibility and the burden of proof theoretical foundation,and Unjustified Enrichment "without lawful under the concept of burden of proof allocation.And with reference to the four cases of Unjustified Enrichment nationwide,roughly depicts the controversial judicial practice in China for the distribution of the burden of proof in such cases.And dispute these cases leads to the following reasons analysis.The second chapter is the focus of this article chapter,the part from the burden of proof allocation perspective cause analysis.Then our burden of proof in this perspective allocated legislation and the burden of proof allocation theory analysis.Cause analysis,concluded that the Unjustified Enrichment "no legitimate reason why" the burden of proof allocation in judicial practice,there is a controversy,both the burden of proof on the allocation of responsibilities insufficient and Unjustified Enrichment system from the perspective of Unjustified Enrichment under reasons.Chapter law learn chapter,the three most important civil law countries and regions,"Germany","Japanese","Taiwan" the relevant provisions in the allocation of the burden of proof of Unjustified Enrichment and theoretical combing of these the state(region) has the burden of proof in cases of Unjustified Enrichment distribution instructive experience of burden of proof,and Unjustified Enrichment system summary.The fourth chapter is the most critical sections of this article,is the wording of the purpose.The chapter first is based on the second chapter to explore the root causes of the the macro perfect path.Departure from the macro-perfect path,specifically explain why insist on"norms,how to adhere to the specification says" How to amend the "normative said" specific applicable.At the same time,the deep-seated explains how to refine the allocation of the burden of proof on the Unjustified Enrichment.Distinguish the payment of Unjustified Enrichment,Unjustified Enrichment due to non-payment based on the damage to the behavior of people and other non-payment of Unjustified Enrichment three cases,and how to allocate the burden of proof in respect of the three types discussed draw their point of view.