發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-04-20 22:11

  本文選題：新民事訴訟法 + 舉證時(shí)限��； 參考：《廈門大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：新修訂的《民事訴訟法》于2013年1月1日正式開始實(shí)施。該法第65條確立了證據(jù)適時(shí)提出原則,舉證時(shí)限制度在我國法律中有了名正言順的地位。但在新《民事訴訟法》下,舉證時(shí)限制度的完善還困難重重。新修法典對(duì)舉證時(shí)限的規(guī)定存在條文簡單籠統(tǒng)、缺乏可操作性等缺陷,要將舉證時(shí)限制度落到實(shí)處,仍須依賴原有的司法解釋和司法經(jīng)驗(yàn)�？梢灶A(yù)料到,·在未來的一段時(shí)間內(nèi),我國舉證時(shí)限制度的運(yùn)行仍會(huì)遭遇困境。據(jù)此,本文以舉證期限和逾期舉證的法律后果兩項(xiàng)內(nèi)容為線索,并結(jié)合第65條在實(shí)踐中的初步適用情況,分析新《民事訴訟法》下舉證時(shí)限制度存在的部分問題,擬提出一些能夠使舉證時(shí)限制度在現(xiàn)階段良好運(yùn)行的基本對(duì)策。 全文除引言和結(jié)語外,共分為四章： 第一章論述舉證時(shí)限制度的基本問題,包括舉證時(shí)限制度的概念、價(jià)值及其在我國的歷史沿革。本章著重分析了舉證時(shí)限制度舊有概念存在的弊端,并對(duì)新《民事訴訟法》下舉證時(shí)限制度的概念進(jìn)行重構(gòu),為下文論證作好鋪墊。 第二章對(duì)舉證期限的基本內(nèi)容如舉證期限的性質(zhì)和確定方式進(jìn)行分析,詳細(xì)剖析了舉證期限屆滿與舉證逾期的臨界點(diǎn)的區(qū)別；接著探討了審限、法院調(diào)查收集的證據(jù)、申請延長舉證期限、訴訟請求的增加、變更及提起反訴、鑒定申請等與舉證期限密切相關(guān)的部分程序問題；第三節(jié)著重對(duì)簡易程序中的舉證期限問題進(jìn)行分析。 第三章討論了逾期舉證的法律后果。首先對(duì)可罰性逾期舉證行為的構(gòu)成要件進(jìn)行界定,進(jìn)而提出我國應(yīng)當(dāng)將“新證據(jù)”規(guī)則予以廢除的主張。其次對(duì)可罰性逾期舉證行為的幾種制裁結(jié)果及其啟動(dòng)機(jī)制進(jìn)行詳細(xì)探討。 第四章是逾期舉證之法律后果的異議(救濟(jì))制度。從設(shè)立異議(救濟(jì))制度的必要性與異議的對(duì)象范圍、具體處理程序兩個(gè)方面具體論述。
[Abstract]:The newly revised Code of Civil procedure was formally implemented on January 1, 2013. Article 65 of the law establishes the principle of timely presentation of evidence, and the system of time limit of proof has a proper position in Chinese law. However, under the new Civil procedure Law, it is difficult to perfect the system of proof time limit. The provisions of the new code on the time limit of proof have some defects, such as simple and general provisions, lack of maneuverability, and so on. In order to put the system of the time of proof into practice, we still have to rely on the original judicial interpretation and judicial experience. It can be expected that, in the future, the system of proof time will still run into difficulties. On the basis of this, this paper takes the time limit of proof and the legal consequence of late proof as the clue, and combined with the preliminary application of article 65 in practice, analyzes some problems existing in the system of the time limit of proof under the new Civil procedure Law. This paper puts forward some basic countermeasures which can make the system of proof time run well at the present stage. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the full text is divided into four chapters: The first chapter discusses the basic problems of the system of the time limit of proof, including the concept, value and historical evolution of the system of proof time limit in our country. This chapter focuses on the analysis of the defects of the old concept of the system of the time limit of proof, and reconstructs the concept of the system of the time limit of proof under the new Civil procedure Law, so as to pave the way for the following argumentation. The second chapter analyzes the basic content of the period of proof, such as the nature and determination of the period of proof, analyzes the difference between the expiration of the period of proof and the critical point of the deadline of proof in detail, and then probes into the evidence collected by the court. Application for extension of the period of proof, the increase of litigation requests, changes and the filing of counterclaims, appraisal applications and other closely related to the period of proof of some procedural issues; the third section focuses on the summary procedure in the analysis of the time limit of proof. The third chapter discusses the legal consequences of late proof. This paper first defines the constitutive elements of punishable late proof, and then puts forward the proposition that "new evidence" rules should be abolished in our country. Secondly, some sanctions and their initiation mechanism are discussed in detail. The fourth chapter is the system of dissent (relief) of the legal consequences of late proof. This paper discusses the necessity of setting up dissent (relief) system and the object scope of dissent.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廈門大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 柯陽友;孔春潮;;論民事訴訟中的攻擊防御方法——以日本普通訴訟程序?yàn)橐暯荹J];北京科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年04期

2 張榕;;事實(shí)認(rèn)定中的法官自由裁量權(quán)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2009年04期

3 奚瑋;楊錦炎;;民事證明權(quán)的多維視角[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2009年05期

4 張榕;民事司法改革的困境及出路[J];福建論壇(經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)版);2002年02期

5 宋春雨;;《民事訴訟法》修改中完善民事證據(jù)制度的若干設(shè)想[J];法律適用;2011年07期

6 湯維建;;民事證據(jù)法典化的價(jià)值確證與難題解析[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2009年02期

7 湯維建,陳巍;《關(guān)于民事訴訟證據(jù)的若干規(guī)定》的創(chuàng)新與不足[J];法商研究;2005年03期

8 李濤,段鈞;淺析舉證期限的確定[J];法學(xué)雜志;2003年01期

9 江偉;單國軍;徐卉;;1997年民事訴訟法學(xué)研究的回顧與展望[J];法學(xué)家;1998年01期

10 劉田玉;;論“法律真實(shí)”的合理性及其意義[J];法學(xué)家;2003年05期

，

本文編號(hào)：1779661