Perspective | Research on Issues Related to Burden of Proof in Unjust Enrichment Cases
Published:
2025-01-07
In our country's civil law system, debts can be classified into statutory debts and contractual debts based on whether the parties are allowed to exercise their autonomy in establishing the debt and its content. Debts arising from unjust enrichment are classified as statutory debts. The Civil Code has specific and clear provisions regarding the composition of unjust enrichment; however, there are still many questions and controversies in practice regarding the allocation of the burden of proof for unjust enrichment. This article analyzes these issues based on legal provisions, judicial cases, and more.
Abstract:In the civil law system of our country, according to whether the establishment and content of debts allow for the autonomy of the parties, debts can be divided into statutory debts and consensual debts. Debts arising from unjust enrichment are classified as statutory debts. The Civil Code has specific and clear provisions regarding the composition of unjust enrichment, but there are still many questions and controversies in practice regarding the allocation of the burden of proof for unjust enrichment. This article analyzes based on legal provisions, judgment cases, etc.
1. Legal Provisions on Unjust Enrichment
Article 122 of the Civil Code stipulates that a person who suffers loss due to another person obtaining unjust benefits without legal basis has the right to request the return of the unjust benefits.
Article 985 of the Civil Code stipulates that if the beneficiary obtains unjust benefits without legal basis, the person who suffers loss can request the beneficiary to return the benefits obtained, except in the following circumstances: (1) Payments made to fulfill moral obligations; (2) Payments made before the debt is due; (3) Payments made with knowledge that there is no obligation to pay.
From the above provisions, it can be seen that the composition requirements for unjust enrichment are four: ① One party obtains benefits; ② The other party suffers losses; ③ There is a causal relationship between the benefits obtained by one party and the losses suffered by the other party; ④ The beneficiary's gains have no legal basis. For actions that meet the above four requirements, except for the three exceptions stipulated in Article 985 of the Civil Code, the party suffering loss can request the beneficiary to return the benefits obtained.
At the same time, depending on the subjective state of the beneficiary, their obligations may also differ.
Article 986 of the Civil Code stipulates that if the beneficiary does not know and should not know that the benefits obtained have no legal basis, and the benefits obtained no longer exist, they are not obligated to return those benefits.
According to this provision, for "good faith beneficiaries," the scope of return is limited to existing benefits; if the benefits no longer exist, there is no obligation to return those benefits.
Article 987 of the Civil Code stipulates that if the beneficiary knows or should know that the benefits obtained have no legal basis, the person who suffers loss can request the beneficiary to return the benefits obtained and compensate for the losses according to law.
According to this provision, for "malicious beneficiaries," they not only have to return the benefits obtained (regardless of whether those benefits exist) but also should compensate for the losses of the injured party.
2. The Burden of Proof for "The Beneficiary's Gains Have No Legal Basis" in Unjust Enrichment Litigation
Among the four composition requirements for unjust enrichment, the proof of one party obtaining benefits, the other party suffering losses, and the causal relationship between the gains of one party and the losses of the other party belongs to the proof of positive facts. According to the principle of "who claims, who proves," the burden of proof is generally borne by the injured party, which is not much disputed in practice. However, the requirement that "the beneficiary's gains have no legal basis" belongs to negative facts, and the allocation of the burden of proof for this requirement has significant divergence in judicial practice. This key requirement, due to the different allocation of the burden of proof, directly leads to completely opposite litigation results.
Currently, there are mainly the following viewpoints in judicial practice:
1. The burden of proof is borne by the rights claimant.
This viewpoint holds that "who claims, who proves" is the basic principle of evidence in civil litigation. In the absence of explicit legal provisions, the burden of proof cannot be arbitrarily reversed due to difficulties in proof. Moreover, since the plaintiff usually has a better understanding of the transaction details, it is reasonable for them to bear the burden of proof, which helps prevent abuse of litigation and encourages parties to regulate their behavior, maintaining social and economic order.
The Shandong Provincial High People's Court in case (2021) Lu Min Zhong 654 held that, first, according to Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 91 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law, unless otherwise provided by law, the party claiming the existence of a legal relationship should bear the burden of proof for the basic facts that give rise to that legal relationship. The law does not make special provisions for the rules of burden of proof in unjust enrichment disputes.
The Huai Bei City Du Ji District People's Court in case (2021) Wan 0602 Min Chu 2400 held that parties should provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims or defenses are based, unless otherwise provided by law. Before making a judgment, if a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove their factual claims, the party bearing the burden of proof will bear the adverse consequences.
2. The burden of proof is borne by the beneficiary.
"No legal basis" is a negative fact. Analyzing from the perspective of the burden of proof, proving that the benefits obtained have no legal basis is proof of negative facts; the rights claimant usually cannot directly prove negative facts and needs to infer and judge from related facts. If the burden of proof is assigned to the rights claimant, it would be unfair.
The First Civil Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court expressed the view in the "Q&A on Civil Trial Practice" (Law Press, July 2021, first edition) that "in principle, it is more appropriate for the defendant (beneficiary) to bear the burden of proof for the lack of legal basis." It believes that "no legal basis" in unjust enrichment is not a specific fact to be proven in general litigation, but a collection of a series of unspecified civil legal acts, factual acts, and even events. For the plaintiff, requiring them to prove "no legal basis" is an impossible task. According to Article 91, Item 1 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law, the party claiming the existence of a legal relationship should bear the burden of proof for the basic facts that give rise to that legal relationship, which is also an exception to the principle of "who claims, who proves." The same viewpoint has been expressed in judgments such as (2020) Supreme Court Min Shen 3004 and (2019) Supreme Court Min Zai 34.
In case (2020) Supreme Court Min Shen 3004, it was held that, under normal circumstances, parties cannot directly prove negative facts and need to infer and judge from related facts. Among them, the beneficiary's defense against the claim of negative facts will become direct evidence for determining whether the claim of negative facts is established. In this case, Dalian Tianyang argued that Ouyang Cheng was representing Tianyang Company to invest in Dalian Tianyang, so Dalian Tianyang needed to provide evidence to prove the existence of the fact that Tianyang Company entrusted Ouyang Cheng to invest in Dalian Tianyang to constitute a valid defense. The only evidence in Dalian Tianyang's proof that could directly prove the existence of that entrusted relationship was the letter of entrustment in the capital verification report. However, when Ouyang Cheng denied the authenticity of the letter of entrustment and applied for judicial appraisal, neither Dalian Tianyang nor Tianyang Company could provide the original for judicial appraisal, and there was no other evidence in the case to support the existence of that letter of entrustment or entrusted relationship. Therefore, Dalian Tianyang should bear the legal consequences of failing to provide evidence, and the original judgment determined that Dalian Tianyang's defense could not be established, and its possession of the funds in question constituted unjust enrichment, which had factual basis and was not improper.
3. The court analyzes and determines the allocation of the burden of proof based on the specific circumstances of the case.
Unjust enrichment should be distinguished between payment-type unjust enrichment and non-payment-type unjust enrichment. In payment-type unjust enrichment, the injured party is the subject that causes the change in the property involved in the case, and they should have a clear understanding of the purpose of their payment at the time of the initial payment, as well as a reasonable understanding of the reasons for the disappearance of that purpose, and a certain awareness of the reasons why the beneficiary obtained benefits "without legal basis." "Without legal basis" is not merely a negative fact; the injured party should be able to explain the specific reasons for the lack of payment purpose. Therefore, in payment-type unjust enrichment, the injured party should bear the burden of proof regarding "without legal basis." In non-payment-type unjust enrichment, the burden of proof for "without legal basis" often requires evidence of the causal relationship between one party obtaining benefits and the other party suffering losses, as well as the losses and gains involved. Typically, the party that causes the change in property should bear the burden of proof for "without legal basis."
The Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court holds this view in cases (2017) Zhe Min Shen 1308, (2018) Zhe Min Shen 2489, and (2024) Zhe Min Shen 1134.
Conclusion
This article believes that in unjust enrichment dispute cases, appropriate allocation of the burden of proof is key to ensuring judicial fairness and efficiency, and can prevent substantial injustice caused by mechanical justice. Through the analysis and comparison of the above views, this article argues that in unjust enrichment dispute cases, it is necessary to distinguish between payment-type unjust enrichment and non-payment-type unjust enrichment, and to allocate the burden of proof based on the parties' ability to provide evidence, which helps clarify the facts of the case, improve judicial efficiency, and better maintain the legal order of the market and the stable development of the social economy.
Key words:
Zhongcheng Qingtai Jinan Region
Address: Floor 55-57, Jinan China Resources Center, 11111 Jingshi Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province
