老旧住宅加装电梯中低楼层业主补偿请求权的法律依据

The Legal Basis for the Compensation Claim of Owners of Lower Floors in the Installation of Elevators in Old Residential Buildings

摘要: 文章围绕老旧住宅加装电梯中低楼层业主补偿请求权的法律依据展开。首先审视现有学说与司法裁判，认为《民法典》相邻关系规范仅确立低楼层业主的容忍义务，不能创设补偿请求权；侵权责任因加装行为经合法表决和审批、中高楼层业主通常无过错且行为不具违法性，难以适用；总则编公平原则及第179条过于抽象，不能独立作为请求权基础；第117条征收征用补偿规则具有公法属性，无法直接或类推适用；第322条第2款添附补偿规则也与加装电梯情形不符。由此形成法律漏洞。在此基础上，文章提出应适用《民法典》第985条不当得利制度，尤其是以“权益归属”为核心的权益侵害型不当得利理论。中高楼层业主因加装电梯获得出行便利和房屋增值，低楼层业主则承受采光、通风、安宁及房屋相对价值等权益归属内容的侵害。程序合法仅意味着可以加装，不等于中高楼层业主可无偿保有相关利益；第985条但书规定的排除情形亦不适用。文章认为，权益侵害型不当得利无需违法性与过错要件，构成要件高度契合，可为低楼层业主补偿请求权提供明确、可操作的法律依据，从而实现民生工程推进与少数业主权益保护的平衡。

Abstract: This article focuses on the legal basis for the compensation claim of owners of lower floors in the installation of elevators in old residential buildings. It first reviews existing theories and judicial decisions, arguing that the neighboring relations provisions of the Civil Code merely establish the duty of tolerance of lower-floor owners and cannot create a compensation claim; tort liability is difficult to apply because the elevator installation has undergone lawful voting and approval, and the owners of middle and high floors generally have no fault and their conduct is not unlawful; the fairness principle in the General Provisions and Article 179 are too abstract to serve independently as a basis for a claim; the expropriation and requisition compensation rules in Article 117 have public-law attributes and cannot be directly or analogically applied; and the accession compensation rule in the second sentence of Article 322, paragraph 2 is inconsistent with the situation of elevator installation. A legal gap thus arises. On this basis, the article proposes that the unjust enrichment system under Article 985 of the Civil Code should be applied, especially the theory of unjust enrichment by infringement of rights/interests centered on the “attribution of rights and interests”. Owners of middle and high floors obtain travel convenience and housing appreciation from the elevator installation, while owners of lower floors suffer infringement of the content of rights and interests attributed to them, such as daylight, ventilation, tranquility, and the relative value of their housing. Procedural legality only means that installation is permitted; it does not mean that middle- and high-floor owners may retain the relevant benefits without compensation, and the exclusionary circumstances in the proviso to Article 985 do not apply. The article concludes that unjust enrichment by infringement of rights/interests does not require unlawfulness or fault, and its constituent elements are highly consistent with the situation, so it can provide a clear and operable legal basis for the compensation claim of lower-floor owners, thereby balancing the advancement of livelihood projects and the protection of the rights and interests of minority owners.