自民法第二百十三條第三項修正增列之後，「回復原狀」與「金錢賠償」之對應關係，更足以彰顯我國民法在損害賠償方法上所採取的雙軌制。亦即就物之損害賠償而言，乃係以民法第二百十三條之規定為中心，而民法第二百十三條所彰顯的，乃係被害人（或債權人）之「完整利益」的保護，此處所謂「完整利益」之保護，乃係指未有侵害事實時，被害人（或債權人）現時或將來所應處狀態的“回復”，此即為損害賠償責任法上「回復原狀」之真義。至於民法第二百十四條以及第二百十五條所保護的，乃是被害客體之「價值利益」，因為相對應於「回復原狀」之「金錢賠償」，原則上即係物之財產上價值的賠償。此外，民法第一百九十六條乃係作為民法第二百十三條第三項之補充規定，其目的乃在於填補被害客體於修補而”回復“其完整性後，其財產上價值尚無法”回復“其應有狀態所生之損失。同時，有關「以新換舊」之問題，考諸民法第二百十三條第三項之規範精神，亦應將其重點置諸被害客體”回復“後所衍生之效果，而非在於其”回復“之過程。

　　　　　The relationship between the "restoration of the prior conditions" and "monetary compensation" stated in the modified Section 3, Article 213, demonstrates the double systems of the compensation system in the Civil Law of Taiwan. What Article 213 protects is the "complete interests" of victims or creditors. According to the definition of this article, the right of a victim or creditor shall be "restored" to its existing or expected state as if there were no infringement. This is also the real meaning of "restoration" in terms of compensation principles. On the other hand, what articles 214 and 215 protect is the "value interests" of the infringed object. In comparison with the "monetary compensation" in terms of the "restoration of prior conditions", what shall be compensated in accordance with articles 214 and 215 is the value of properties. Article 196 is a supplement to Section 3, Article 213. It is applicable when the value of the property cannot be "restored" to its prior state after the infringed object is repaired and "restored" to its original state. As for the 'change with a new object" in terms of Section 3, Article 213, the consequent result of the "restoration" is what this article wants to demonstrate, rather than the process of the "restoration".