英文摘要 |
"According to the Supreme Court Civil Judgment 105 Tai-Shang-Tzu 2111, there are still a number of controversial questions to clarify regarding the nature, essentials, and scope of the return of substitute benefits claim. Based on attribution theory on rights and interests in Taiwan Civil Code, the claim for substitute benefits has two multi-characteristics. The claim for return of substitute benefits can be interpreted not only a parallel to the law of unjust enrichment, but also a function to promote the fulfillment of the duty to perform debt. Under guidance of two multi-characteristics for return of substitute benefits claim, the elements of the claim have gradually loosened, such as the scope of application of the claim an object not only to tangible, intangible objects and right, but also to action and omission. Meanwhile, the purpose of the claim is to loosen the standard of impossibility, to weaken the requirement of direct causal link between the replacement benefit and the release reason of the performance obligation, to adjust the criteria for the same identity of the owned and substitute benefits. Finally, regarding the dispute about the scope of claim for substitute benefits this article will focus on comparing the scholarship and legal practice in the field of equitable compensation and disgorgement of profit in Anglo-American law und German civil law, in order to find an appropriate balance with regard to incorrect distribution of profit in our law system." |