英文摘要 |
Beginning with the case adjudged by the Taiwan Supreme Court, case No. Taishentzu 1833, 2011, we would find that it is necessary to explore the nature of the claim of the return of reimbursement. Especially, we could sketch the contours of the claim of the return of reimbursement by virtue of the gist of Taiwan Civil Code article 225 and German Civil Code article 285. The basic normative idea of the claim of the return of reimbursement is that it adjusts the unjust allocation of assets between parties resulted from contracts. Meanwhile, contrasting the claim of the return of reimbursement with the infringed-typed unjust enrichment regulated in Taiwan Civil Code article 179 reflect that although they are different in protected object, one for the contractual status (right in personam) and another for the exclusive status (right in rem), they both established with the legal principle of unjust enrichment. Guided by the idea of adjusting the unjust allocation of assets between parties resulted from contracts, the claim of the return of reimbursement should not be understood to continue the original debt, but a brand new right. According to this, the extinctive prescription of the claim of the return of reimbursement should start from the moment when performance becomes impossible. In addition, the idea could end the argument of the nature of the claim of the return of reimbursement in an appropriate way which conforms with the purpose of the regulation. |