代偿请求权理论之初探——兼论《民法典》视野下代偿请求权的适用基础

A Preliminary Study on the Theory of Claim for Return of Substitute Benefits—Also on the Analysis of the Applicable Rule of the Claim for Substitute Benefits under the Perspective of Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China

近世立法多将代偿请求权明定为给付不能的效果之一,惟其在具体适用上存在诸多争议性问题,相关见解莫衷一是。本文在借鉴德国与台湾地区相关学说的基础上,对代偿请求权正当性基础予以探寻。“公平正义说”“合同补充解释说”“给付标的代位说”均存在理论局限从而难以提供实质正当化理由,“相对权益归属说”可说明代偿利益应归属于债权人之根本原因,应系最适切的见解。在“相对权益归属说”的核心定位下,代偿请求权制度中的争议性问题可得到较为妥当的回应。我国现行法虽未对代偿请求权予以明文规定,但因代偿请求权与不当得利法具备一定同质性,且相对权亦具有归属内容,遂可尝试通过《民法典》中不当得利相关规范为代偿请求权的法律续造提供进路。法律效果层面,代偿请求权于我国的解释构造应受制于不当得利法本身所蕴含的价值判断。

Claim for Return of Substitute Benefits has been explicitly defined as one of the effects of impossi-bility of performance in modern legislation. However, there are multiple controversial issues about its application, and the opinions are divided. This article aims to explore the legitimacy of Claim for Return of Substitute Benefits based on the relevant doctrines in Germany and Taiwan. The theories of “fairness and justice”, “interpretation of the implied terms of contract” and “subrogation of the subject matter” all have theoretical limitations, which make it difficult to provide substantive justi-fication. The theory of “relative belonging of rights and interests” is the most appropriate opinion to explain the fundamental reason why the substitute benefits should be vested in the claimant. Un-der the guidance of the foresaid theory, the controversial issues about Claim for Return of Substi-tute can be appropriately responded to. Although Return of Substitute Benefits Claim is not men-tioned in Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, this right has a certain homogeneity with the unjust enrichment, and the theory of rights and interests belonging applies to relative right as well. Therefore, we can try to provide a way for the legal renewal of Claim for Return of Substitute through the rules related to unjust enrichment in the Civil Code. When it comes to the legal effect, the interpretation of the Return of Substitute Benefits Claim should be subject to the value judg-ment of the unjust enrichment.