| 摘要: |
| 传统民法学说认为所有物返还请求权的构成要件包括“被请求人无权占有”，受到学界的普遍质疑，其中代表性观点借鉴《德国民法典》第985条和第986条的规范构造，认为应舍弃“无权占有”要件并改采“有权占有”为抗辩规范，更加符合“一般与例外”的证明责任分配关系。该观点与我国《民法典》第235条文义有别，要求对现行规范进行漏洞填补。但是，该观点未能全面考察德国民法学理，对证明责任对象的理解失之偏颇，还造成了请求权竞合情形下的体系冲突。为尊重“规范说”，质疑观点对现行规范的攻讦和误读可借由合理解释化解与澄清： 在类型化思路下，通过参酌“附属性理论”和请求权相互影响说，可根据请求人与相对人之间有无合同关系，分别比照给付型不当得利和侵益型不当得利确立“无权占有”要件的证明规则；在请求标的为动产的情况下，为平衡占有权利推定规则对相对人的责任优待和请求人的证明负担，可借助利益衡量方法，在请求人完成所有权取得事实的证明并获得法官心证后，适度削弱占有的表征功能，令相对人就占有本权的要件事实承担主张责任，从而促进法院对真实权属关系的发现。 |
| 关键词: 所有物返还请求权 证明责任 主张责任 占有权利推定 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目: |
|
| On the Interpretation of Article 235 of China Civil Code in Perspective of Burden of Proof |
|
Gao Xu
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| The tatbestand required by the claim on restitution in general doctrines of civil law that the property is possessed by a person not entitled to do so has been oppugned by many scholars. One representative view, drawing lessons from the article 985 and 986 of German Civil Code as well as the related theory, claims that it is difficult for the claimant to prove that the defendant is unentitled to possess the property. Therefore, that tatbestand should be abandoned. In contrast, the requested person is entitled to claim his rightful possession as a defense, which is more in line with the general and exceptional relationship in burden of proof. This viewpoint aims to challenge the article 235 of China Civil Code and close the legislative loophole it asserts, though it may be discordant with the standard of burden of proof prescribed in the Interpretations of Supreme Peoples Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law. However, this viewpoint fails to depict the overall theoretical picture in German civil law. It also confuses the function of fact and tatbestand in the perspective of onus of proof. Whats worse, it ignores the systematic relationship in civil rights and leads to conflicts in burden of proof when different rights to claim are applicable in a concurrence case. The article 235 of China Civil Code can be justified under the guidance of categorization. With theoretical tools as interest weighing, misunderstandings in legal application can be dispelled by reasonable interpretations. |
| Key words: Claim on Restitution, Burden of Proof, Burden of Factual Allegations, Presumption of Possessory Right |
