Restitution is an important yet abstract concept in civil law. In traditional civil law, monetary and non-monetary restitutions are both allowed in awarding damages. In countries and regions that adopt this concept, restitution is widely used in all subject areas of civil actions and carries with it very rich meanings. It is often prescribed and explained in two categories: standards for damage compensation and manners of liability assumption, providing purpose of compensation and methods of compensation, respectively. Nonetheless, in our civil legislation, both the General Principles of the Civil Law and Tort Law only prescribe restitution as one of the many types of civil liability and only provide a simple definition of “to restore the physical object to its original shape.” The nature of “restoring the original state” in Property Law is also highly debated. Additionally, how to choose among other ways of liability that are also applicable to physical objects becomes another focus of the debate. In sum, disputes over the theories, purpose of legislation, and confusions in practice make enforcing restitution claims very difficult in the administration of justice. This essay begins with an introduction of restitution system in comparative laws and presents an overview of restitution laws in our civil legislation. Through an analysis of the nature of restitution and restitution as compared with other claims and ways of liability, it then pinpoints the position of restitution in our legal system. After an empirical study of 300 randomly selected cases involving restitution, this essay concludes that restitution carries distinctive regulative significance in the areas of property rights protection, contract system, and compensation for tort damages. Meanwhile, it clarifies conditions of enforcement, ways of realization, and methods of choosing a proper relief among the alternatives and distinguishes restitution claims from claims for restitution expenses and monetary compensation. Last, this essay puts forward some proposals to address disputes and deficiencies existed in our restitution system.

恢復原狀是民法上重要的抽象概念。在傳統民法中，損害賠償的方式除了金錢賠償 外，還可以採用非金錢的方式，即恢復原狀。在那些使用恢復原狀概念的國家和地區， 恢復原狀被廣泛適用於民法的各個領域，其規範意義可以歸納為損害賠償標準與責任承 擔的方式，涵義十分豐富。作為損害賠償標準的恢復原狀，其制度意義是作為損害賠償 應達到的目的，作為責任承擔方式的恢復原狀，則對應著實現損害賠償目的的具體方 法。然而在我國內地的民事立法中，《民法通則》和《侵權責任法》中的恢復原狀作為 民事責任承擔方式的一種，其涵義僅僅被限定為當物受毀損時“將有體物修復如初”。 《物權法》中的“恢復原狀”的性質是物權請求權還是侵權責任方式，在理論界也存在 不小的爭議。另外，對於同樣適用於物的毀損情形的其他責任承擔方式，如何選擇適用 也成為爭議的焦點。理論中的爭議、立法者的初衷、實踐中的困惑，讓恢復原狀請求權 的實現成為司法難題。 本文以比較法上恢復原狀制度的介紹為開端，在考察其他國家（地區）立法例的同 時，將我國民事立法中的恢復原狀拉入視線。通過對恢復原狀性質的分析，恢復原狀與 其他請求權以及責任承擔方式的辨析，得出恢復原狀在我國立法體系中的定位。同時， 通過對隨機選取的 300 個司法實踐中恢復原狀糾紛案例的實證分析，得出恢復原狀在物 權的保護、合同制度以及侵權損害賠償制度上分別具有不同的規範意義。通過理清恢復 原狀的行使條件、在物受毀損時恢復原狀的實現方式，對比分析當有體物遭受毀損時各 種救濟方式的適用效果，得出物受毀損時恢復原狀與其他救濟方式的選擇適用。嚴格區 分恢復原狀請求權、恢復原狀花費的請求權以及金錢賠償請求權，承認恢復原狀的花費 屬於恢復原狀的範疇。通過對立法體系的分析、對理論學說的對比、對司法案例的歸納 總結，針對恢復原狀制度在我國民事立法中的爭議和不足之處，建議在我國内地民法典 出臺的進程中，適當考慮對民事責任承擔體系的調整，進而建立體系更加優化、涵義更 加清晰的恢復原狀制度。