本文選題：民間借貸 + 舉證責(zé)任分配　； 參考：《吉首大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：民間借貸以其自身的豐富性、多樣性和完整性,為大眾創(chuàng)業(yè)、萬(wàn)眾創(chuàng)新提供了巨大支持和幫助。但從客觀上講,我國(guó)金融和法律體系尚不完善,隨之民間借貸風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的漸增,隱患的突出,使得我國(guó)目前民間借貸亂象叢生。反應(yīng)在司法層面,就導(dǎo)致近幾年來(lái)民間借貸糾紛案件數(shù)量激增、借貸金額大幅上升、糾紛類型日新月異、涉嫌虛假訴訟、非法集資等違法、犯罪活動(dòng)越發(fā)突出、強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行結(jié)案率低下等。目前我國(guó)民間借貸糾紛舉證責(zé)任分配規(guī)則尚不健全是亂象叢生的主要原因之一。本文主要針對(duì)民間借貸糾紛中舉證責(zé)任做的研究,希望對(duì)民間借貸的理論研究和司法實(shí)踐有所裨益。首先,是緒言部分,包括選題背景、研究意義、文獻(xiàn)綜述、主要研究?jī)?nèi)容與研究方法。其次,本文對(duì)舉證責(zé)任概述及分配模式進(jìn)行分析。通過(guò)整理舉證責(zé)任的基本理論,歸納出我國(guó)目前形成的舉證責(zé)任分配模式:一般規(guī)則是“誰(shuí)主張誰(shuí)舉證”,一般規(guī)則的例外是舉證責(zé)任倒置及法官自由裁量。并通過(guò)對(duì)我國(guó)分配規(guī)則的深刻分析找到其存在的缺點(diǎn),一般規(guī)則的缺點(diǎn)主要表現(xiàn)在:第一,規(guī)定表述不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn),語(yǔ)義模糊;第二,未解決待證事實(shí)由誰(shuí)主張的問(wèn)題;第三,未明確闡述舉證責(zé)任的內(nèi)涵等。對(duì)英美法系、大陸法系舉證責(zé)任分配模式進(jìn)行總結(jié)、歸納,與我國(guó)舉證責(zé)任分配方式進(jìn)行分析、比較,從而提出我國(guó)應(yīng)借鑒兩大法系中舉證責(zé)任分配的理論,提倡舉證分配規(guī)則多元化,并為特定種類的法律關(guān)系制定與之相適應(yīng)的舉證分配規(guī)則,以力求達(dá)到個(gè)案的公平、公正。之后,本文分析了我國(guó)民間借貸糾紛的特殊性及其舉證責(zé)任分配現(xiàn)狀�？疾斓轿覈�(guó)民間借貸糾紛具有數(shù)量激增、金額巨大、執(zhí)行執(zhí)結(jié)率低;消費(fèi)性民間借貸與商業(yè)性民間借貸共存;案件證據(jù)少,查清客觀事實(shí)難;刑民交叉問(wèn)題、虛假訴訟現(xiàn)象突出等特殊性,已經(jīng)構(gòu)成了特性鮮明的特定種類的法律關(guān)系。而我國(guó)民間借貸糾紛中舉證責(zé)任分配現(xiàn)狀卻是多重規(guī)范并用、分配適用不統(tǒng)一、自由裁量權(quán)未得到合理運(yùn)用等,凸顯了立法規(guī)定的滯后。最后,本文提出完善民間借貸糾紛舉證責(zé)任的建議。認(rèn)為需建立統(tǒng)一的民間借貸舉證責(zé)任分配機(jī)制,對(duì)夫妻一方簽字的借款,應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定為夫妻一方的個(gè)人債務(wù),但有證據(jù)證明為夫妻共同債務(wù)的除外;對(duì)筆跡鑒定的主體責(zé)任,分清情況,并明確被告拒不提供筆跡鑒定對(duì)比樣本的法律責(zé)任;規(guī)范實(shí)體法,將舉證責(zé)任分配規(guī)則寫入《合同法》,規(guī)范借款合同形式、提供借款方式及履行方式;平衡當(dāng)事人間的舉證責(zé)任分配,審慎判斷全案證據(jù),合理使用法官自由裁量權(quán)。
[Abstract]:Private lending, with its richness, diversity and integrity, provides tremendous support and help for mass entrepreneurship and innovation. But objectively speaking, the financial and legal system of our country is not perfect, with the increase of the risk of the folk loan and the prominent hidden trouble, it makes the folk loan of our country appear in chaos at present. At the judicial level, this has led to a sharp increase in the number of disputes over private lending in recent years, a sharp rise in the amount of loans, a rapid change in the types of disputes, suspected illegal litigation, illegal fund-raising, and more prominent criminal activities. Enforcement of the low rate of cases, etc. At present, the rule of allocation of burden of proof is not perfect, which is one of the main reasons of disorder. This paper mainly focuses on the research of the burden of proof in the civil borrowing disputes, hoping to be beneficial to the theoretical research and judicial practice of private lending. First, the preface, including the background, significance, literature review, main research content and research methods. Secondly, this paper analyzes the burden of proof and distribution model. By sorting out the basic theory of the burden of proof, this paper sums up the distribution mode of the burden of proof formed in our country: the general rule is "who advocates the proof", the exception of the general rule is the inversion of the burden of proof and the discretion of the judge. And through the profound analysis of the distribution rules of our country, we find their shortcomings. The shortcomings of the general rules are as follows: first, the stipulation is not strict and the semantics are vague; secondly, the problem of who claims the facts to be proved has not been resolved; third, The connotation of the burden of proof is not clearly elaborated. This paper sums up the distribution mode of burden of proof in Anglo-American law system and civil law system, sums up it, analyzes and compares with the way of burden of proof distribution in our country, and puts forward the theory that our country should draw lessons from the distribution of burden of proof in the two legal systems. It advocates the diversification of the rules of distribution of proof, and formulates the corresponding rules of distribution of proof for certain types of legal relations, in order to achieve the fairness and justice of individual cases. After that, this paper analyzes the particularity of the non-government loan dispute and the distribution of the burden of proof. The investigation shows that the number of private loan disputes in China has increased dramatically, the amount of money is huge, the enforcement rate is low; consumer private lending and commercial private lending coexist; there is little evidence in the case, it is difficult to find out the objective facts; The particularity of false litigation, such as outstanding phenomenon, has already formed a special kind of legal relationship with distinctive characteristics. However, the distribution of burden of proof in the civil loan disputes in our country is multi-standard, the distribution is not uniform, and the discretion has not been used reasonably, which highlights the lag of the legislative provisions. Finally, this paper puts forward some suggestions to improve the burden of proof in private loan disputes. Considering that it is necessary to establish a unified mechanism for the distribution of the burden of proof of folk lending, and that the loan signed by one of the spouses shall be regarded as the personal debt of one spouse, unless there is evidence that it is the joint debt of the husband and wife, and the principal responsibility for handwriting identification, To distinguish the situation and clarify the defendant's legal responsibility to refuse to provide the comparative sample of handwriting identification, standardize the substantive law, write the rules of burden of proof into contract Law, standardize the form of the loan contract, and provide the way of borrowing and performing; Balance the distribution of the burden of proof between the parties, judiciously judge the evidence of the whole case, and use the discretion of the judge reasonably.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉首大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 段鑫睿;;從夫妻共同債務(wù)談民間借貸司法解釋的不足[J];法制與社會(huì);2015年31期

2 崔春曉;;民事訴訟舉證責(zé)任的分配[J];法制博覽;2015年09期

3 范永龍;;民間借貸糾紛案件舉證責(zé)任分配再辨析[J];遼寧行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2014年12期

4 王林清;陳永強(qiáng);;民間借貸的事實(shí)審查與舉證責(zé)任分配之法理[J];政治與法律;2013年12期

5 杜萬(wàn)華;韓延斌;張穎新;王林清;;建立和完善我國(guó)民間借貸法律規(guī)制的報(bào)告[J];人民司法;2012年09期

6 傅胤胤;范s，

本文編號(hào)：2096564