东北大学学报（社会科学版）

东北大学学报（社会科学版） ›› 2021, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (4): 91-98.DOI: 10.15936/j.cnki.1008-3758.2021.04.012

• 法学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

论强迫得利

黄赤橙   

  1. (清华大学法学院，北京100084)
  • 发布日期:2021-07-30
  • 通讯作者: 黄赤橙
  • 作者简介:黄赤橙(1993-)，女，重庆人，清华大学博士研究生，主要从事民法学研究。
  • 基金资助:
    中国民法学研究会青年学者研究资助项目(2017MFXH005)。

Study on Imposed Benefit

HUANG Chicheng   

  1. (School of Law， Tsinghua University， Beijing 100084， China)
  • Published:2021-07-30
  • Contact: -
  • About author:-
  • Supported by:
    -

RichHTML

21

PDF (PC)

722

摘要： 强迫得利指违反受领人意思的利益，基于对受领人选择自由的尊重，此种利益对于受领人而言不属于得利，因此不构成不当得利。此系不当得利成立阶段的问题，而非返还计算时主观贬值的问题。当所受领的利益是没有争议的利益或者受领人选择了利益时，不属于强迫得利。受领人选择利益包含请求利益、能够轻易返还利益却不予返还、袖手旁观、事后追认利益这几种情形。对于受领人是否选择利益以及对于返还价值的计算，都应当以一个若处于受领人环境的理性第三人标准进行判断。

关键词: 强迫得利; 不当得利; 没有争议的利益; 选择利益; 主观贬值

Abstract: Imposed benefit refers to the benefit against the defendant's autonomy. Based on the respect for the defendant's freedom of choice， such benefit is not enrichment for a particular defendant. Therefore， there is no unjust enrichment. This is an issue in the first stage of whether the obligation based on unjust enrichment can be established， rather than in the second stage of whether restitution should be qualified by subjective devaluation. When the benefit is incontrovertible or is chosen by the defendant， there is no imposed benefit. The defendant has chosen the benefit if there is a request， retention of readily returnable benefit， free acceptance， or subsequently confirmation. Regarding whether the defendant has chosen the benefit or evaluated the benefit， it should be viewed from a reasonable third person in the position of the defendant.

Key words: imposed benefit; unjust enrichment; incontrovertible benefit; choice of benefit; subjective devaluation

中图分类号: