本文關(guān)鍵詞： 庭審調(diào)查 要件事實(shí) 調(diào)查順序 調(diào)查方法　出處：《鄭州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：民事審判程序中的庭審調(diào)查是民事庭審的核心環(huán)節(jié),其最基本的功能在于查明和確認(rèn)案件事實(shí)。由于我國(guó)立法中具體規(guī)范的缺失、學(xué)術(shù)研究操作性環(huán)節(jié)的指導(dǎo)性不足,司法實(shí)踐中的庭審調(diào)查存在許多問(wèn)題:庭前準(zhǔn)備過(guò)度,侵蝕庭審調(diào)查功能并虛化庭審;需要查明的要件事實(shí)確定不準(zhǔn)確;庭審調(diào)查的順序不合理,沒(méi)有規(guī)范的調(diào)查順序規(guī)則指引,出現(xiàn)法官隨意確定、強(qiáng)勢(shì)主導(dǎo),或者法官放任當(dāng)事人自行陳述、出示證據(jù)、質(zhì)證等各種做法;庭審調(diào)查的方法不適當(dāng),法庭認(rèn)定證據(jù)的時(shí)機(jī)把握不準(zhǔn)確。針對(duì)立法和司法實(shí)踐存在的問(wèn)題,提出了相應(yīng)的解決對(duì)策。合理分配庭審調(diào)查和庭前準(zhǔn)備任務(wù),庭前準(zhǔn)備只應(yīng)是做程序性事務(wù)性的準(zhǔn)備,而不應(yīng)包括實(shí)質(zhì)性審理的內(nèi)容,像確認(rèn)事實(shí)和認(rèn)定證據(jù)這些實(shí)質(zhì)審理內(nèi)容的都應(yīng)在開(kāi)庭審理時(shí)進(jìn)行;正確界定庭審調(diào)查的要件事實(shí)是開(kāi)展好庭審調(diào)查的前提,只有準(zhǔn)確全面地確定當(dāng)事人爭(zhēng)議事實(shí)、法官判斷定案必須查明的事實(shí)、當(dāng)事人承認(rèn)后又反悔事實(shí)等要件事實(shí),才能完成庭審調(diào)查的根本任務(wù);確定庭審調(diào)查的順序,不應(yīng)以證據(jù)的種類為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和根據(jù),應(yīng)當(dāng)按照需要查明的事實(shí)即爭(zhēng)議事實(shí)發(fā)生發(fā)展的順序進(jìn)行。庭審調(diào)查伊始,法官在當(dāng)事人陳述和答辯的基礎(chǔ)上,及時(shí)總結(jié)無(wú)爭(zhēng)議事實(shí)并當(dāng)庭確認(rèn)。對(duì)爭(zhēng)議事實(shí),按照原告主張事實(shí)的發(fā)生時(shí)間順序開(kāi)展調(diào)查,由當(dāng)事人出示證據(jù)質(zhì)證。一案有單一事實(shí)而事實(shí)過(guò)程較長(zhǎng)的,分階段、層次調(diào)查。一案有多個(gè)事實(shí)的,對(duì)每個(gè)事實(shí)分項(xiàng)調(diào)查;證據(jù)出示質(zhì)證的方式方法因案而異,對(duì)案件核心證據(jù)應(yīng)當(dāng)一證一舉一質(zhì),對(duì)案情簡(jiǎn)單證據(jù)較少的可以全案舉證、綜合質(zhì)證,對(duì)案情復(fù)雜,事實(shí)過(guò)程較長(zhǎng)或有多個(gè)事實(shí)的,可以采取分組舉證質(zhì)證;關(guān)于法庭認(rèn)定證據(jù)的時(shí)機(jī),在獨(dú)任審判時(shí)可以視情況當(dāng)庭認(rèn)證或庭審后認(rèn)證,但合議制條件下,不經(jīng)過(guò)認(rèn)真合議而直接由審判長(zhǎng)當(dāng)庭認(rèn)證不符合合議原則,因此,在普通程序中的庭審調(diào)查中,不主張當(dāng)庭認(rèn)證。鑒于現(xiàn)行立法存在的問(wèn)題,民訴法應(yīng)當(dāng)設(shè)專門(mén)的一節(jié)規(guī)定庭審調(diào)查;增加規(guī)定:及時(shí)歸納當(dāng)事人共同認(rèn)可事實(shí)并當(dāng)庭予以確認(rèn);及時(shí)歸納確認(rèn)當(dāng)事人爭(zhēng)議要件事實(shí);修改庭審調(diào)查的順序,按照需要查證的要件事實(shí)確定調(diào)查順序,對(duì)于證據(jù)效力的認(rèn)定,法官根據(jù)審理情況,可以在法庭當(dāng)庭進(jìn)行,也可以在庭審后進(jìn)行,但認(rèn)定結(jié)果和理由應(yīng)當(dāng)在法庭上向當(dāng)事人公布。
[Abstract]:The trial investigation in civil trial procedure is the core link of civil trial, and its most basic function is to find out and confirm the facts of the case. Due to the lack of specific norms in the legislation of our country, the guidance of the operational link of academic research is insufficient. In judicial practice, there are many problems in the trial investigation: excessive preparation before the trial, eroding the function of the investigation of the trial and fictitious trial; the facts that need to be ascertained are not accurate; the order of the investigation in the trial is unreasonable, the order of the investigation is unreasonable. There are no standardized rules on the order of investigation, and there are various practices that the judge determines at will, dominates strongly, or that the judge allows the parties to present their own statements, produce evidence, cross-examine evidence, and so on; the methods of court investigation are not appropriate. The court finds that the timing of evidence is not accurate. In view of the problems existing in legislation and judicial practice, it puts forward corresponding countermeasures. It should not include the content of the substantive trial, such as the confirmation of facts and the determination of evidence, which should be conducted during the trial session; the correct definition of the essential elements of the trial investigation is the premise of conducting a good trial investigation. Only by accurately and comprehensively determining the facts of dispute between the parties, the facts that the judge must find out in the judgment of the final case, the facts of the parties admitting and repenting the facts, and so on, can the fundamental task of the trial investigation be completed, and the order of the trial investigation be determined. It should not be based on the type of evidence, but should be carried out in the order in which the facts that need to be ascertained, namely, the disputed facts, occur and develop. At the beginning of the trial investigation, the judge shall, on the basis of the statement and defence of the parties, Promptly summarize the undisputed facts and confirm them in court. If the disputed facts are investigated in the order in which the facts are claimed by the plaintiff, and the parties present evidence for cross-examination. If the case has a single fact and the fact process is relatively long, it shall be divided into stages. Level investigation. If a case has multiple facts, it will investigate each fact item by item; the ways and means of presenting cross-examination of evidence will vary from case to case. The core evidence of the case shall be proved one by one, and the case with less simple evidence may be proved in the whole case. If the case is complex and the fact process is relatively long or there are multiple facts, the comprehensive cross-examination may be conducted in groups of evidences; regarding the timing of the court's determination of the evidence, it may be authenticated in court or after the trial, as appropriate, at the sole trial. However, under the collegial system, it is not in conformity with the principle of collegiality to certify directly by the presiding judge in court without serious collegiality. Therefore, in the investigation of the trial in the ordinary procedure, the authentication in court is not advocated. In view of the problems existing in the current legislation, The Law on Civil procedure shall set up a special section to provide for the investigation of the trial; add provisions: promptly induct and confirm the facts jointly approved by the parties and confirm them in court; sum up and confirm the facts of the disputing elements of the parties in a timely manner; and revise the order of the investigation in court, To determine the order of investigation according to the facts that need to be verified, the judge may, according to the circumstances of the trial, conduct the determination of the validity of the evidence in court or after the hearing. However, the findings and reasons shall be published to the parties in court.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 龍?jiān)戚x;;日本民事要件事實(shí)及其機(jī)能[J];學(xué)海;2007年01期

2 段文波;;要件事實(shí)理論——兼論民事法學(xué)教育[J];西南交通大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年03期

3 段文波;;要件事實(shí)理論下的攻擊防御體系——兼論民事法學(xué)教育[J];河南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2012年04期

4 徐青森,丁相順;要件事實(shí)與實(shí)務(wù)養(yǎng)成模式比較[J];法律適用;2005年09期

5 任文松;;要件事實(shí)與主張責(zé)任[J];學(xué)海;2006年05期

6 段文波;裁判邏輯與實(shí)定法秩序之維護(hù)——要件事實(shí)論綱[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2005年03期

7 章恒筑;夏瑛;;日本要件事實(shí)論綱——一種民事訴訟思維的展開(kāi)[J];法學(xué)家;2005年03期

8 羅燦;;基本構(gòu)成要件事實(shí)模糊不能定罪[J];人民司法;2011年16期

9 許可;;當(dāng)事人主義訴訟體制下法官審判方法的基礎(chǔ)——要件事實(shí)概說(shuō)[J];國(guó)際關(guān)系學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年01期

10 程麗莊;;要件事實(shí)論與日本法律人培養(yǎng)[J];學(xué)海;2007年01期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 鄒碧華;王建平;陳婷婷;;審視與探索——要件審判九步法的提出和運(yùn)用[A];全國(guó)法院系統(tǒng)第二十二屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)論文集[C];2011年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 北京大學(xué)法學(xué)院副教授 傅郁林;“審”與“判”的邏輯和相應(yīng)技巧[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

2 趙靜華;多倫縣法院民事庭推出“三不”調(diào)解法[N];錫林郭勒日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

3 記者 劉繼忠 通訊員 喬麗萍;法院民事庭深入社區(qū)化解矛盾[N];巴彥淖爾日?qǐng)?bào)(漢);2010年

4 ;有必要建立民事庭前答辯制度[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

5 本報(bào)記者 原麗新　通訊員 張洪文;不讓糾紛出社區(qū)[N];四平日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

6 記者 聶敏寧 通訊員 王 健;成鐵中院開(kāi)展庭審考評(píng)活動(dòng)[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

7 姚勇;建立證據(jù)調(diào)查令制度初探[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2003年

8 ;高娜簡(jiǎn)要事跡[N];營(yíng)口日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

9 程雷;用制度保障采納無(wú)罪與罪輕證據(jù)[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

10 本報(bào)記者 董小軍 通訊員 金萍;老人為何上法庭打官司[N];寧波日?qǐng)?bào);2012年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 段文波;要件事實(shí)的基礎(chǔ)[D];重慶大學(xué);2007年

2 章恒筑;要件事實(shí)原論[D];四川大學(xué);2006年

3 康丹;南海島礁主權(quán)歸屬證據(jù)研究初論[D];武漢大學(xué);2013年

4 陳驚天;法官證據(jù)評(píng)判研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 齊曉丹;我國(guó)民事庭審調(diào)查研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2017年

2 崔帥帥;論要件事實(shí)理論對(duì)民事判決書(shū)改革的意義[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

3 徐葉;要件事實(shí)的識(shí)別與運(yùn)用[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2016年

4 姚佳;要件事實(shí)理論在運(yùn)輸合同糾紛訴訟中的應(yīng)用[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

5 楊曉雯;要件事實(shí)理論在融資租賃合同糾紛訴訟中的應(yīng)用[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

6 符迪;要件事實(shí)理論在委托合同糾紛訴訟中的應(yīng)用[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

7 歐陽(yáng)川紫;要件事實(shí)理論在買賣合同糾紛訴訟中的應(yīng)用[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

8 駱星宇;一般侵權(quán)行為要件事實(shí)之認(rèn)定[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

9 李清源;要件事實(shí)理論在建設(shè)工程合同糾紛訴訟中的應(yīng)用[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

10 周蕾;要件事實(shí)理論在居間合同糾紛訴訟中的應(yīng)用[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號(hào)：1519780