不當得利價額償還責任客觀化之困境與反思──以強迫得利之爭議為核心之探討

Reconsideration about the Dilemma in the Objectification of Compensation Responsibility Regarding Unjust Enrichment: Focus on the Forced Unjust Enrichment

不當得利債務人依法應負原物返還之義務，惟原物不存在時，則應負價額償還之責任，通說對此認為，其償還範圍以客觀價額為限。本文即以無因管理規範及損害賠償制度中與有過失之觀點，嘗試對在強迫得利之情形，不當得利客觀價額償還義務之見解加以說明及因該見解所生之困境，提供可行之法理上論述與方法。基於強迫行為之原因事實導致發生不當得利返還或償還義務之情形，本文認為在規範適用上，首先應以無因管理規範中事務或權益歸屬主體主觀意思之尊重，並以之調整強迫得利應否及償還範圍之決定依據；其次，在對稱相似之觀點下類推適用與有過失之規範精神，依雙方當事人、僅受有利益人或受損人知悉事實之過程而生強迫得利在防免義務違反上之不同，作為評價受有利益人應負、得主張免負或減少價額償還責任上之決定依據。

The unjust enrichment debtor by law has an obligation to return the originally given subject. However, if the initially given subject is non-existent, the debtor shall bear compensation responsibility. In synthetic judgment, the repayment scope is limited to the objective price. However, doctrine and practical interpretation acknowledge that given the situation of forced enrichment, the unjust enrichment debtor may claim the counterplea of benefits received are nonexistent. However, the constituting causes need to be more detailed and further explored. This paper adopts the perspectives of negotiorum gestorum regulations and contributory negligence in the damage compensation system to attempt to explain interpretations of unjust enrichment and objective compensation responsibility under the situation of forced enrichment, as well as the plights that arise from such an interpretation. Feasible theoretical discourses and methods are thereby provided. Under the existing interpretation of payment and non-payment types of unjust enrichment according to the modern non-uniform theory, the causes of unjust enrichment should be based on differences in unjust enrichment types, thus meeting the unjust enrichment responsibility condition and the different standards for the return range decisions, and thereby validating the scope of repayment. Therefore, based on the causes of forced behaviors and the situation of unjust enrichment return or repayment obligations, in terms of regulatory applicability, first, matters in the negotiorum gestorum regulations or respect of the subjective intention of the subject of ownership shall serve as the basis for the decision of whether to adjust forced enrichment and the scope of repayment. Secondly, the applicable and faulty normative spirit shall be analogized under symmetrical and similar perspectives. Finally, both interested parties and the beneficiary or the impaired, in the process of fact acknowledgment leading to violation of forced enrichment avoidance obligations, shall serve as a determining factor for evaluating the beneficiary who bears or claims compensation exemption or reduction responsibility.