本文選題：間接否認(rèn) + 義務(wù)化　； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：民事訴訟之間接否認(rèn)（亦稱附理由的否認(rèn)），主要是探討在民事訴訟過程中，非負(fù)證明責(zé)任之一造當(dāng)事人對(duì)他造當(dāng)事人之主張進(jìn)行否認(rèn)時(shí)，，不僅僅是為簡(jiǎn)單之否認(rèn)，同時(shí)還附加了一定的理由。那么，這樣一種做法是否應(yīng)適用于一般的民事糾紛中呢？也即，是否對(duì)于所有非負(fù)證明責(zé)任之當(dāng)事人，在對(duì)他造當(dāng)事人之主張進(jìn)行否認(rèn)時(shí)都應(yīng)當(dāng)附加理由呢？間接否認(rèn)是否應(yīng)當(dāng)作為非負(fù)舉證責(zé)任之當(dāng)事人的一項(xiàng)義務(wù)？關(guān)于此問題，在德國(guó)、日本以及我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的理論與實(shí)務(wù)界均有探討。其中，尤以德國(guó)為甚，它不僅僅在理論上有大量探討，亦在立法中予以明確規(guī)定。 要展開對(duì)此問題之討論，關(guān)涉諸多方面。其不僅與民事訴訟之目的有關(guān)，亦和誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則有關(guān)，還涉及到辯論主義之相關(guān)理論問題。而最為困難者，莫過于間接否認(rèn)義務(wù)化與辯論主義基本理論之沖突的調(diào)和，包括：當(dāng)事人間接否認(rèn)義務(wù)化會(huì)否加重其負(fù)擔(dān)？間接否認(rèn)義務(wù)化會(huì)否與處分原則相抵觸？間接否認(rèn)義務(wù)化會(huì)否動(dòng)搖當(dāng)事人在訴訟中的主體地位，使其淪為訴訟中提供證據(jù)的工具？諸多問題值得探討。 我國(guó)并沒有關(guān)于當(dāng)事人間接否認(rèn)義務(wù)化之規(guī)定，關(guān)于這一問題之探討亦是十分有限。雖司法實(shí)務(wù)界對(duì)當(dāng)事人僅為簡(jiǎn)單之否認(rèn)給整個(gè)民事訴訟進(jìn)程帶來之消極影響亦有所認(rèn)識(shí)，諸如訴訟遲延問題、爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)總結(jié)難問題、法庭證據(jù)調(diào)查效率低等問題。然我國(guó)理論與實(shí)務(wù)界似對(duì)將此作為一專門問題予以研究興趣不大。本文借由對(duì)德國(guó)、日本及我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)關(guān)于此問題之文獻(xiàn)、制度規(guī)定的研究，以及該制度在上述國(guó)家或地區(qū)之民事訴訟法上的定位分析，進(jìn)而嘗試將我國(guó)法律之特殊因素納入考量之。希望借由此，引起大家對(duì)此種民事訴訟之重要制度的關(guān)注與重視，肯定其在限縮當(dāng)事人間爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)、幫助法院進(jìn)行充實(shí)有效的證據(jù)調(diào)查等方面之積極作用。 本文主要分為五個(gè)部分： 第一部分，是間接否認(rèn)基本情況的介紹。主要討論間接否認(rèn)之內(nèi)涵、其容易混淆的周邊概念及其功能，其中將重點(diǎn)討論間接否認(rèn)、抗辯與自認(rèn)之間的內(nèi)在聯(lián)系和區(qū)別。通過此部分的討論，厘清基本概念，為間接否認(rèn)義務(wù)化的展開奠定基礎(chǔ)。 第二部分，將展開對(duì)間接否認(rèn)義務(wù)化之確立依據(jù)的探討。此部分主要介紹德國(guó)、日本及我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)關(guān)于該問題的理論與實(shí)踐以及其他關(guān)于間接否認(rèn)依據(jù)的探討。借此，對(duì)間接否認(rèn)在域外的實(shí)施情況及依據(jù)有所了解。 第三部分，在對(duì)間接否認(rèn)義務(wù)之域外適用情況有一個(gè)大致的了解之后將會(huì)談到間接否認(rèn)義務(wù)化的適用問題，包括間接否認(rèn)義務(wù)的法律定位、適用對(duì)象、適用前提、適用范圍。 第四部分，將重點(diǎn)分析間接否認(rèn)義務(wù)化過程中所面臨的一些難題，并對(duì)其進(jìn)行分析，以解開對(duì)間接否認(rèn)義務(wù)化所帶來之不利影響的疑慮。 第五部分主要討論間接否人義務(wù)化的中國(guó)思考。在分析我國(guó)民事訴訟現(xiàn)狀的基礎(chǔ)上，對(duì)間接否認(rèn)義務(wù)化的中國(guó)適用展開討論，提出構(gòu)想。
[Abstract]:The denial of civil litigation (also called the denial of the reason) is mainly to discuss whether one of the non negative burden of proof in the process of civil litigation is not merely for simple denial when one of the non negative burden of proof is made to deny the claims of his parties, but also a certain reason is added. In other words, is it necessary to add reasons to all non negative parties in denying his party's claim? Is it an obligation to indirectly deny whether it should be a party to the non negative burden of proof? On this issue, both theory and practice in Germany, Japan, and the Taiwan region of our country Among them, especially Germany, it has not only been discussed in theory, but also been clearly stipulated in legislation.
There are many aspects to be discussed. It is not only related to the purpose of civil litigation, but also related to the principle of good faith, but also related to the relevant theoretical issues of the debate doctrine. The most difficult one is the harmonization of the conflict between the indirect denial of obligation and the basic theory of the debating doctrine, including the obligation of the parties to deny the basic theory. Will indirect denial of denial be incompatible with the principle of disposition? Indirect denial of denial will shake the party's main position in the lawsuit and make it a tool to provide evidence in litigation? Many problems deserve to be discussed.
There are no provisions on the indirect denial of denial of the parties in our country, and the discussion on this question is also very limited. Although the judicial practice circles also have a certain understanding of the negative influence of the simple denial to the whole civil procedure process, such as the problem of litigation delay, the difficult point of dispute, the low efficiency of the court evidence investigation. However, our country's theory and practice circles seem to have little interest in studying this as a special issue. This article is based on the literature on this issue in Germany, Japan and the Taiwan region of our country, the research on the regulations of the system, and the position of the system in the Civil Procedure Law of the above countries or regions, and then try to make the law of our country special. Many factors are taken into consideration. I hope that by this, we should pay attention to the important system of this civil action, and affirm its positive role in limiting the dispute between the parties and helping the court to carry out an effective and effective evidence investigation.
This article is divided into five parts:
The first part is the introduction of the indirect denial of the basic situation. It mainly discusses the connotation of indirect denial, its confusing peripheral concepts and its functions, which will focus on the internal relations and differences between indirect denial, defense and self recognition. Through the discussion of this part, we will clarify the basic concepts and lay the foundation for the expansion of the indirect denial of denial.
The second part will discuss the basis of the establishment of the indirect denial of denial. This part mainly introduces the theory and practice of the issue in Germany, Japan and the Taiwan region of our country, as well as other discussions on the basis of indirect denial.
The third part, after a general understanding of the extraterritorial application of the indirect denial obligation, will talk about the application of the indirect denial of denial, including the legal position, the applicable object, the applicable premise and the scope of application of the indirect denial obligation.
In the fourth part, we will focus on the analysis of some problems in the process of the indirect denial of denial, and analyze them in order to dissolve the doubts about the adverse effects of the indirect denial of denial.
The fifth part mainly discusses the indirect Chinese thinking of non person compulsory. On the basis of the analysis of the status of civil litigation in China, it discusses the application of indirect denial of obligation in China and puts forward some ideas.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D915.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周成泓;;論民事訴訟中的摸索證明[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2008年04期

2 江偉;劉榮軍;;民事訴訟中當(dāng)事人與法院的作用分擔(dān)──兼論民事訴訟模式[J];法學(xué)家;1999年03期

3 湯維建;;論民事訴訟中的誠(chéng)信原則[J];法學(xué)家;2003年03期

4 周翠;;現(xiàn)代民事訴訟義務(wù)體系的構(gòu)建——以法官與當(dāng)事人在事實(shí)闡明上的責(zé)任承擔(dān)為中心[J];法學(xué)家;2012年03期

5 張永泉;論訴訟上之真?zhèn)尾幻骷捌淇朔㘚J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2005年02期

6 張衛(wèi)平;;民事訴訟中的誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2012年06期

7 陳剛;;日本民事訴訟法上誠(chéng)實(shí)信義原則之解讀[J];清華法學(xué);2012年06期

8 周翠;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》體系下的證明責(zé)任倒置與減輕規(guī)范與德國(guó)法的比較[J];中外法學(xué);2010年05期

9 翁曉斌;論我國(guó)民事訴訟證明責(zé)任分配的一般原則[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2003年04期

10 占善剛;;附理由的否認(rèn)及其義務(wù)化研究[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2013年01期

本文編號(hào)：2001502