摘要
关于违法无效合同的不当得利返还,我国法并无明确规定。两大法系大同小异的做法是"全有全无",具体为不当得利的违法性抗辩及例外规则体系。我国《民法典》在编纂过程中虽然删除了不法原因给付规则,但仍可通过对第985条的扩张解释,将"全有全无"设定为违法无效合同不当得利返还的一般规则。我国司法实践则沿袭了最高人民法院在股权代持纠纷中所持的裁判立场,基于对原《合同法》第58条的扩张解释,在投资已有增值且国家不予收缴的前提下,采取了在受损人与得利人之间进行"比例分担"的返还方案。英国法从形式主义转向结果主义的最新发展、量化修正的比例原则、股权代持中当事人经营行为的存在,三者共同证立了违法无效股权代持适用"比例分担"特殊规则的正当性;但这项特殊规则不应替代"全有全无",上升为普适于各类违法无效合同不当得利返还的一般规则。无论是"全有全无"还是"比例分担",不当得利返还对象原则上不应包括金钱的使用价值。
Chinese law currently has no clear answer to the question of restitution for unjust enrichment involving illegal and void contracts.The prevailing position in both common law and civilian jurisdictions,despite minor discrepancies,is the"all or nothing"approach,represented by the system of illegality defence to unjust enrichment.Although the draft provision specifically on the illegality defence has been deleted in the final version of the Chinese Civil Code,the"all or nothing"approach nevertheless remains to be the general rule for illegal and void contracts in Chinese law by an extensive interpretation of Article 985.By contrast,in the context of shareholding entrustment,the position in Chinese commercial law is"apportionment"of restitution between the enrichee and the aggrieved party,which derives from the Supreme People’s Court’s position in handling issues of illegal and void shareholding entrustment.This position is based on an extensive interpretation of Article 58 of the Contract Law,and is qualified by the existence of investment appreciation,and by the non-application of forfeiture.The application of the special rule of"apportionment"in the context of illegal and void shareholding entrustment can be justified by a range of factors,namely,the very recent development in English law regarding its shift from formalism to consequentialism,the principle of proportionality modified by quantitative ideas,and the existence of the parties’management activities in shareholding entrustment.These factors also demonstrate why such special rule of"apportionment"should not be upgraded to replace the general"all or nothing"rule,therefore applies to all kinds of illegal and void contracts.Whether"all or nothing"or"apportionment"is applied,the scope of restitution for unjust enrichment shall not,in principle,cover the use value of money.
出处
《中外法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2021年第3期606-625,共20页
Peking University Law Journal
基金
国家社科基金青年项目“公司法与证券法协同背景下信义义务的内在体系研究”(项目编号:19CFX048)的阶段性成果
关键词
股权代持
不当得利
违法性
比例分担
比例原则
Shareholding Entrustment
Unjust Enrichment
Illegality
Apportionment
Proportionality
