侵權責任請求權與不當得利返還請求權的關係

The Relationship between the Claims of Torts and Unjust Enrichment

侵權責任（損害賠償）請求權與不當得利返還請求權的關係應當在“債”的體系中展開，債的概念是二者關係研究的邏輯起點。在承認非給付不當得利的基礎上，侵權責任請求權與不當得利返還請求權會發生關聯，對二者關係的理論和立法存在三種觀點。從比較法的經驗與我國目前的理論與實踐來看，我們應當堅持競合肯定說，這種競合應當是“請求權競合”而非“選擇性競合”。承認二者競合應以肯定兩種制度的獨立性為前提，兩種制度應各自嚴守本分和其構成要件，實現制度的銜接與協力，既不缺席也不越位。但在我國立法和司法解釋中極少量的“請求權越界”問題可以作為例外存在，不會對兩種請求權獨立性產生較大衝擊。

The relationship between the claims of torts (damages) and unjust enrichment should be discussed in the context of legal obligation, and the conception of “ obligatio” is the logical origination in the research of the relationship between them. On the basis of admitting non-delivery unjust enrichment, there will be relevancies between the claims of torts and unjust enrichment. Theoretically and practically, there are three points of view on the relationship between them. From the angles of comparative law and the theory and practice of China, we should insist on concurrence, and this concurrence is the “concurrence of claim” and not the “optional concurrence”. Admitting the concurrence of them should be based on the independence of two systems, and each system should have its domain. We should realize the combination and cooperation of the systems, and neither absence nor overstepping the limits. But some problems of “overstepping the bound of claim” in our legislation and judicial interpretations can be exceptions to that rule, and will not bring about much impact to the independence of each claim.