Our Civil Code § 179 has ruled that three elements must be established to prove unjust enrichment, namely, benefit and loss, the causation in-between, and no legitimate explanatory basis. Among them, the recognition of the loss and benefit plays the crucial role and is the starting point in unjust enrichment actions, especially in multiple party payment litigations. Unfortunately, legal theorists and learned judges have overlooked some essence in the recognition of the benefit and loss, which conduces to complexity and confusion herein. This article, at the first place, advocates the concept of the “net” benefit and loss, which elaborates the overall assessment of property difference as a consequence of a certain intervening event, tangible or intangible assets all included. Especially highlighted is the importance that the emergence and elimination of creditor’s right and debt should not be ignored when calculating the benefit and loss. And when multiple events intervene, the individual observation on the net benefit and loss can be integrated into a comprehensive one, only if these events exhibit causation in-between. This article also makes special emphasis on the crucial application of this proposed “net” concept in various typical and classical unjust enrichment events and some litigation, in order to examine preliminarily its feasibility and effectiveness. The “net” benefit and loss concept conforms well to the contemporary property concept generally adapted by plebeians, moreover its application transgress neither rules nor regulations of civil law in force. Nevertheless, it proves itself unsophiscated and efficacious in the recognition of “who” bears net benefit and “who” suffers the net loss, and might be helpful in the unjust enrichment judgement.