论民法典合同编(草案)不当得利第三人返还条款立法取舍——以刑事追赃视角切入

The Selection of Article of the Third-party Restoration in Unjust Enrichment of Civil Contract Code Draft ——From the Perspective of Criminal Booty-recovery

我国《民法典合同编(草案)》第771条规定不当得利第三人返还条款,当第三人有偿时,不区分主观善意或恶意第三人就可取得利益,如此立法值得商榷。一方面,当刑事追赃涉及第三人利益需要民事手段补充救济时,该条款造成民、刑两大部门法相冲突。另一方面,该条款移植与我国不采物权行为理论立场相冲突。比较法上不当得利第三人返还条款有两类三种不同立法例,以拉丁美洲一些国家的民法典为代表,规定第三人有偿时,但主观属恶意的,仍需承担返还责任,以此与善意取得制度衔接。我国民法典借鉴上述规定,有利于实现规范与理论自洽,内部与外部体系协调。

Article 771 of China s Civil Contract Code Draft stipulates the clause of the return of third-party benefits. When the third party is paid, the interests can be obtained without distinguishing subjective goodwill or malice, which is a major defect. On the one hand, when the criminal booty-recovery pursuit involves third-party interests and requires civil means to supplement relief, the clause causes conflicts between the civil and criminal departments. On the other hand, the transplantation of this clause conflicts with the theoretical position of China s non-accepting-real-right behavior. There are three different types of legislative cases in the comparative law as represented by the civil code of some countries in Latin America. When the third party is paid but subjectively malicious, it still needs to bear the responsibility for return. In this way, it is connected with the system of good faith acquisition. Drawing on the above provisions, our national Civil Code is conducive to achieving self-consistency between norms and theories, and internal and external systems.