The Interpretative Plan For The Payment Of Illegal Causes

According to the systematic arrangement of the unjust enrichment in the Civil Code,if the facts of the case meet the constituent elements of No.985,it is still necessary to further examine whether the exception to the payment of unjust enrichment is met.In this regard,No.985 has three exceptions to the general right to claim unjust enrichment,which is called the exclusion of unjust enrichment in doctrine.However,such arrangement is not without question.Compared with the foreign law,the exclusion provision of No985 of the Civil Code is obviously missing one item-"the payment is provided for unlawful reasons,and the payment shall not be requested to be returned".Traditional civil law countries and regions either enumerate as a whole or stipulate in separate articles the blocking of the right to unjust enrichment under the payment of unlawful causes.This lack leads to very different court decisions,so it is necessary to fill the legislative gap.This article summarizes the subject from judicial practice and discusses the justifiable basis of non-return of payment due to unlawful reasons in combination with the provisions and theories of extraterritorial law.Then based on the analysis of the unlawful cause payment requirements,it is typed,and then from the perspective of hermeneutics,the legal effect and the processing path of the unlawful cause payment under the background of our country’s law are proposed.This paper consists of three parts: introduction,main body and conclusion,of which the main body is divided into four chapters.Chapter 1: This chapter first introduces the concept of payment-type unjust enrichment and exclusion,and then concludes that the lack of payment due to unlawful causes cause the court to make decisions on the same type of cases:dismissal of prosecution,confiscation,request for return,four different judgments for which no return may be requested.Therefore,it is necessary to make up for the lack of legislation in the end,and the corresponding interpretation path should be explored.Chapter 2: This chapter starts with the related system of Roman law and explores the historical origin and legal basis of the non-refundable payment due to unlawful reasons.Then,the comparative law is investigated,and by summarizing the statutory provisions of Germany,France,Japan,Chinese Taiwan,and Eastern European socialist countries and Anglo-American legal precedents,it compares the handling modes of various countries and regions for such cases: most of them are based on the principle of non-return.Finally,summarize the justifiable basis for not requesting for restitution:first,to save the court from hearing wrongful claims;second,the theory of punishment;third,the theory of refusal to protect rights;fourth,the general purpose of prevention.Chapter 3: This chapter first analyzes the various elements of unlawful cause payment and draws the conclusion: lawlessness should include mandatory legal provisions and public order and good customs;the cause should adopt the subjective cause theory;the payment must be final.Then,it is divided into three points according to the degree of illegality: the contract is invalid due to illegal reasons and the level of public law intervention is reached;the contract is invalid due to illegal reasons but does not reach the level of public law intervention;the contract is still valid despite the existence of illegal reasons.Combining with who the unlawful cause exists,this double standard is used to type.Chapter 4: This chapter is based on the previous chapter and discusses the legal effects and interpretation paths of payment due to unlawful reasons under the current law one by one.For the first case: the contract is invalid due to unlawful reasons and reaches the level of public law intervention,the profit confiscation system in public law is introduced,the consistency of usage and the legal principle of non-repetitive punishment are demonstrated,and the conclusion is drawn: on the principle of non-return,it is allowed to return are exceptions.For the second case: the contract is invalid due to unlawful reasons,but the level of public law intervention is not reached,the argument is based on legitimacy,supplemented by the reasons for judgment in the current law,and it is concluded that the principle of non-return is the principle,and the exception is allowed to return.For the third situation: the unlawful cause exists but the contract is still valid,the theory of incomplete debt is used for reasoning,and it is concluded that the contract is valid but only has retention force but no claim and execution force,so it is a purposeful repayment,and for legal reasons,no return may be requested.