論我國民事司法實(shí)踐中事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣奶幚矸绞?/H1>
發(fā)布時間：2018-07-09 17:07
本文選題：要件事實(shí) + 真?zhèn)尾幻?/strong>��； 參考：《河南大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文
【摘要】：對于如何處理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣?論者發(fā)現(xiàn)理論界研究主要在理論介紹和理論評析方面,少數(shù)學(xué)者只是稍加個案的關(guān)注,實(shí)務(wù)界也并沒有全面關(guān)注該問題�；诖朔N原因論者梳理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻飨嚓P(guān)理論,試以中國裁判文書網(wǎng)上的案例為依據(jù),分析我國民事司法實(shí)踐如何處理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣?探討相關(guān)理論在我國司法實(shí)踐中的運(yùn)用狀況,并為司法實(shí)踐提出一些合理化建議。正文分為四部分,主要內(nèi)容如下:第一部分:事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻飨嚓P(guān)理論概況。事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻魇窃谠V訟過程中,對于某一要件事實(shí)或者關(guān)鍵要件事實(shí),雙方當(dāng)事人在程序上窮盡必要的攻擊和防御手段,在訴訟終結(jié)前,法官仍然不能按照證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)要求,達(dá)到內(nèi)心確信該要件事實(shí)是否為真或者是否為偽,從而在法官心證過程中形成的特殊心理狀態(tài)。如何處理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣?理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界主張有所不同,理論界支持在事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鞯那闆r下,最佳處理方式是適用客觀證明責(zé)任規(guī)則;而實(shí)務(wù)界的態(tài)度是審慎的,是在各種方式都無法處理的情況下適用客觀證明責(zé)任規(guī)則并要求法官有很大的自由裁量權(quán),并且調(diào)解在一定程度受到青睞。第二部分:事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣幚矸绞降念愋�。通過梳理發(fā)現(xiàn)運(yùn)用調(diào)解的方式、按照心證比例判決、降低證明責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、把真?zhèn)尾幻髡J(rèn)定為事實(shí)不存在、運(yùn)用客觀證明責(zé)任規(guī)則的方式處理要件事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鞫际谴嬖诘�。按照調(diào)解方式并未解決爭議問題,最后還是以判決的方式解決爭議糾紛。按照心證比例、降低證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的方式處理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣急壤苄?處理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣\(yùn)用最多的方式是把要件事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻髡J(rèn)定為不存在和運(yùn)用客觀證明責(zé)任規(guī)則方式處理。第三部分:事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣幚矸绞皆u析。處理真?zhèn)尾幻鞯陌讣\(yùn)用調(diào)解方式處理是失敗的,但仍然使用的原因是隨著司法政策的變化,調(diào)解撤訴率成為了評優(yōu)評先進(jìn)的機(jī)制,此外還有其他原因如效率、息訴、防止執(zhí)行難問題等方面有積極的意義,以至于出現(xiàn)追求“零判決”的傾向。論者認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)把握好“能調(diào)則調(diào),當(dāng)判則判”的原則。按照心證比例進(jìn)行裁判與當(dāng)事人進(jìn)行訴訟的目的是不一致的,最重要的是按照此方式使得當(dāng)事人幾乎無法獲得真正勝訴的判決,是以此類方法克服要件事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻魇遣豢扇〉�。對于有些案件中要件事�?shí)因無法獲得證據(jù)使證明存在很大困難時,仍采取高度蓋然性證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn),對被侵權(quán)人來說是不公正的。所以降低證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn),使法官能夠克服一些案件中要件事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻?認(rèn)定因果關(guān)系存在并判決侵權(quán)人賠償是有道理的。但是為追求法的可預(yù)測性,無法普遍適用。當(dāng)法院認(rèn)定案件的事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鞯那闆r下,法院的具體做法是未證明就認(rèn)定為“偽”的方式處理,此方法也是司法實(shí)踐中運(yùn)用最多的處理方式�！蹲C據(jù)規(guī)則》第二條第二款規(guī)定并不是只針對事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鲿r的法律適用,而是與法官心證過程中確認(rèn)事實(shí)為“偽”的情況平等看待,由此可見當(dāng)待證事實(shí)達(dá)到證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時,才能認(rèn)定事實(shí)為“真”,未能達(dá)到證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)就認(rèn)定事實(shí)為“偽”,并使無法證明待證事實(shí)為“真”的一方當(dāng)事人承擔(dān)敗訴后果。該方法恰好與最新《民事訴訟法》司法解釋第一百零八條相契合。運(yùn)用客觀證明責(zé)任處理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣䲡r存在一些問題:對于何時認(rèn)定真?zhèn)尾幻鞯慕琰c(diǎn)不明確,進(jìn)而出現(xiàn)運(yùn)用錯誤;對于客觀證明責(zé)任由何方承擔(dān),有時法院是不明確的;主觀證明責(zé)任和客觀證明責(zé)任在審判中卻出現(xiàn)混淆;因證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不統(tǒng)一問題,出現(xiàn)了真?zhèn)尾幻鞯恼J(rèn)定寬嚴(yán)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不一,導(dǎo)致個案中事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鞯恼J(rèn)定差異很大。當(dāng)然應(yīng)當(dāng)肯定一些法院恰當(dāng)運(yùn)用該規(guī)則處理真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣?這些法院主要集中在浙江的法院,原因是浙江高級人民法院出臺相應(yīng)規(guī)定。第四部分:司法實(shí)踐中事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣幚淼慕ㄗh。在法官審判過程中,首先要把握好事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鞒霈F(xiàn)的情況,對于部分案件而言法官可以通過證據(jù)調(diào)查解決真?zhèn)尾幻鲉栴},而對于有些案件合理運(yùn)用推定的方式也是可以解決真?zhèn)尾幻鲉栴};這些都是法官裁判義務(wù)的回歸。其次,確有必要減輕當(dāng)事人證明責(zé)任時,法官要恰當(dāng)運(yùn)用手中的自由裁量權(quán)。具體而言就是按照心證比例方式和降低證明責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方式,以及合理運(yùn)用《證據(jù)規(guī)則》第七條內(nèi)容裁判;最后,在以上方式都無法克服事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鲿r,正確適用客觀證明責(zé)任規(guī)則——最后一根救命稻草的方式處理。我國在適用客觀證明責(zé)任規(guī)則時應(yīng)當(dāng)依據(jù)最新《民事訴訟法》司法解釋第九十一條的規(guī)定進(jìn)行分配。
[Abstract]:On how to deal with the facts and false cases, the theorists find that the theoretical research is mainly in the theoretical introduction and theoretical analysis. The few scholars only pay attention to the case, and the practical circles do not pay attention to the problem in an all-round way. Based on this reason, the author combs the theory of truth and authenticity, and tries to use the case of the Chinese referee's documents on the Internet. On the basis of the analysis of how our civil judicial practice deals with the fact and false cases, the application of relevant theories in our judicial practice is discussed, and some rationalization proposals are put forward for judicial practice. The text is divided into four parts, the main content is as follows: the first part: the fact of the true and false unidentified theory. In the process, both parties have exhausted the necessary means of attack and defense on a certain element of fact or key elements. Before the end of the lawsuit, the judge still can not meet the requirements of the standard of proof to achieve a special heart in the process of the judge's heart evidence. The theory circles and the practical circles have different opinions on how to deal with the facts of unidentified cases. The theoretical circle supports that the best way to deal with the truth and false is that the best way to deal with the facts is to apply the rules of objective proof, while the attitude of the practice is prudent and the objective rules of burden of proof can be applied under the circumstances that all kinds of ways can not be dealt with. And ask the judge to have a great discretion, and the mediation is favored in a certain degree. The second part: the type of handling the facts of unidentified cases. By combing the way of mediation, it is found that the standard of burden of proof is reduced according to the proportion of the heart and soul, and the truth and false are not identified as the fact, and the objective proof is used. In accordance with the way of mediation, the dispute dispute is not solved, and finally the dispute dispute is solved by the way of judgment. The third part: the process of handling the truth and false unidentified cases is a failure, but the reason for the still use is that with the change of the judicial policy, the rate of mediation withdrawal has become the evaluation and evaluation. In addition, the advanced mechanism, in addition to other reasons, such as efficiency, interest, and prevention of difficult problems, is so positive that there is a tendency to pursue "zero judgment". The most important thing is that it makes it impossible for the parties to obtain a true victory in this way. It is unavailable to overcome the authenticity of the facts by such methods. In some cases, when the facts are unable to obtain evidence to make it difficult to prove that there is a great difficulty, it still takes a high degree of probability to prove the standard and not to the infringed. Therefore, it is fair to reduce the standard of proof, so that the judge can overcome the fact that the facts are true and false in some cases, and it is reasonable to determine the existence of the causation and the indemnity of the infringer. But it can not be universally applicable for the predictability of the pursuit of law. When the facts of the case are found to be true and false, the concrete practice of the court is not proved. This method is also the most used method of processing in judicial practice. The rules of "rule of evidence >" the second provisions of the second paragraphs are not only applicable to the law when the facts are not true or false, but are treated equally with the fact that the facts are "false" in the process of the judge's heart card. When the standard of proof is proved, the facts can be identified as "true", and the fact that the facts are "false" fails to reach the standard of proof, and the party who can not prove the fact that the facts are "true" can bear the consequences of losing the lawsuit. This method coincides with the 108th articles of the latest "Civil Procedure Law > judicial interpretation". There are some problems in the case of unidentified authenticity: it is not clear about when to identify the true or false boundary, and then the use of mistakes; sometimes the court is not clear about the responsibility of the objective proof, and the subjective burden of proof and the objective proof responsibility appear in the trial. It is sure that some courts properly use the rules to deal with the true and false cases. These courts are mainly concentrated in the courts of Zhejiang, the reason is that the high people's court in Zhejiang should make a provision. The fourth part: the true and false of the judicial practice. In the process of judge's trial, it is necessary to grasp the truth and authenticity of the truth in the course of the judge's trial. For some cases, the judge can solve the problem of authenticity through evidence investigation, and for some cases, the rational use of presumption can also solve the problem of authenticity and uncertainty; all these are the judges' obligation to judge. Secondly, when it is necessary to reduce the party's burden of proof, the judge should apply the right of discretion properly. In particular, it is in accordance with the proportion of heart evidence and the way of reducing the standard of burden of proof, and the rational use of the rules of evidence to judge the seventh contents; finally, when the truth and false of the facts can not be overcome, it is correct. It is true that the rule of objective proof of responsibility, the last way to save the straw, should be dealt with in the case of the application of the rules of the objective proof of proof in accordance with the provisions of the ninety-first provisions of the latest "Civil Procedure Law > judicial interpretation".
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D925.1
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 霍海紅;證明責(zé)任:一個“功能”的分析[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年05期
2 ;債的存在與清償證明責(zé)任如何分配?[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì);2004年03期
3 茍吉芝;行政證據(jù)證明責(zé)任研究[J];中州學(xué)刊;2005年05期
4 葛自丹;論證明責(zé)任的分配[J];遼寧公安司法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期
5 丁少英;;淺論證明責(zé)任[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)理人;2006年11期
6 趙大偉;;證明責(zé)任與其功能[J];江西社會科學(xué);2006年06期
7 胡學(xué)軍;;證明責(zé)任轉(zhuǎn)換探析[J];上海政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年03期
8 胡戀梅;;民事推定與證明責(zé)任之關(guān)系研究[J];長沙大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2007年01期
9 朱玉玲;;對民事訴訟中證明責(zé)任轉(zhuǎn)移問題的思考[J];甘肅政法成人教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年01期
10 汪靜淵;劉欣佳;;證明責(zé)任分配的原則與適用[J];黑龍江科技信息;2007年06期
相關(guān)會議論文 前7條
1 林越堅(jiān);;論工程造價(jià)的證明責(zé)任和證明責(zé)任合同[A];中國民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2002年
2 伍光紅;;刑事證明責(zé)任主體論綱[A];第三屆廣西青年學(xué)術(shù)年會論文集（社會科學(xué)篇）[C];2004年
3 肖剛;;我國民事訴訟中證明責(zé)任運(yùn)行失范之反思與重構(gòu)[A];全國法院系統(tǒng)第二十二屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會論文集[C];2011年
4 肖萍;洪發(fā)勝;;行政程序證明責(zé)任研究[A];中國法學(xué)會行政法學(xué)研究會2009年年會論文集（上冊）[C];2009年
5 樓韜;;論注冊資金的證明責(zé)任新論[A];中華全國律師協(xié)會經(jīng)濟(jì)業(yè)務(wù)委員會2001年年會論文集[C];2001年
6 張寶來;解輝;;刑事訴訟中證據(jù)合法性證明責(zé)任的實(shí)踐思索——兼談新《刑事訴訟法》頒行后偵查監(jiān)督的推進(jìn)[A];第八屆國家高級檢察官論壇論文集：證據(jù)制度的完善及新要求[C];2012年
7 周素梅;黃勤鑫;;進(jìn)退維谷:民事訴訟真?zhèn)尾幻飨碌姆ü俨昧縖A];全國法院第25屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會獲獎?wù)撐募汗痉ㄅc行政法實(shí)施問題研究（上冊）[C];2013年
相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條
1 胡燕;從此類案件看證明責(zé)任的運(yùn)用[N];人民法院報(bào);2001年
2 堯蔚云;我國證明責(zé)任制度的完善[N];人民法院報(bào);2001年
3 梅雪芳;由本案看證明責(zé)任的分配[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年
4 狄紅紅;試論民事證明責(zé)任的法律性質(zhì)[N];山西經(jīng)濟(jì)日報(bào);2006年
5 北京市東城區(qū)人民檢察院 溫長軍 陳娜;被告人承擔(dān)一定的證明責(zé)任有合理性[N];檢察日報(bào);2009年
6 杜志宏;略論證明責(zé)任分配中的法官自由裁量[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2008年
7 天津市人民檢察院 孫皓;證明責(zé)任分配不存在阿喀琉斯之踵[N];檢察日報(bào);2014年
8 胡斌;淺談證明責(zé)任的分配[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2002年
9 天津市第一中級人民法院 副院長 馮永提;債的存在與清償及其證明責(zé)任分配[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年
10 駱東平 三峽大學(xué)政法學(xué)院;“誰主張，誰舉證”:一個需要澄清的證明責(zé)任分配規(guī)則[N];中國社會科學(xué)報(bào);2010年
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前6條
1 宋朝武;民事證明責(zé)任原理研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2006年
2 霍海紅;民事證明責(zé)任研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年
3 王雄飛;檢察官證明責(zé)任研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年
4 趙俊甫;刑事推定研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年
5 閻朝秀;司法認(rèn)知：法理、規(guī)則、制度研究[D];四川大學(xué);2006年
6 張?jiān)迄i;刑事推定論[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條
1 梁美英;法官裁量型證明責(zé)任分配研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年
2 韓梅;淺析民事證明責(zé)任分配[D];中國政法大學(xué);2006年
3 王曉陽;論證明責(zé)任分配[D];山東大學(xué);2006年
4 王德新;證明責(zé)任適用問題研析[D];中國政法大學(xué);2003年
5 胡華軍;論民事訴訟中的證明責(zé)任及其分配[D];中國政法大學(xué);2004年
6 姚曉;論證明責(zé)任分配的依據(jù)[D];山西大學(xué);2012年
7 毛金玲;論證明責(zé)任契約[D];蘇州大學(xué);2013年
8 覃賢;民事證明責(zé)任分配的司法裁量[D];廣西大學(xué);2013年
9 朱瑞琛;民事證明責(zé)任基礎(chǔ)理論探新[D];山東大學(xué);2014年
10 郭帥;民事證明責(zé)任分配中的法官自由裁量權(quán)[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2015年
，
本文編號：2110045
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2110045.html
本文選題：要件事實(shí) + 真?zhèn)尾幻?/strong>��； 參考：《河南大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文
【摘要】：對于如何處理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣?論者發(fā)現(xiàn)理論界研究主要在理論介紹和理論評析方面,少數(shù)學(xué)者只是稍加個案的關(guān)注,實(shí)務(wù)界也并沒有全面關(guān)注該問題�；诖朔N原因論者梳理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻飨嚓P(guān)理論,試以中國裁判文書網(wǎng)上的案例為依據(jù),分析我國民事司法實(shí)踐如何處理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣?探討相關(guān)理論在我國司法實(shí)踐中的運(yùn)用狀況,并為司法實(shí)踐提出一些合理化建議。正文分為四部分,主要內(nèi)容如下:第一部分:事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻飨嚓P(guān)理論概況。事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻魇窃谠V訟過程中,對于某一要件事實(shí)或者關(guān)鍵要件事實(shí),雙方當(dāng)事人在程序上窮盡必要的攻擊和防御手段,在訴訟終結(jié)前,法官仍然不能按照證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)要求,達(dá)到內(nèi)心確信該要件事實(shí)是否為真或者是否為偽,從而在法官心證過程中形成的特殊心理狀態(tài)。如何處理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣?理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界主張有所不同,理論界支持在事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鞯那闆r下,最佳處理方式是適用客觀證明責(zé)任規(guī)則;而實(shí)務(wù)界的態(tài)度是審慎的,是在各種方式都無法處理的情況下適用客觀證明責(zé)任規(guī)則并要求法官有很大的自由裁量權(quán),并且調(diào)解在一定程度受到青睞。第二部分:事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣幚矸绞降念愋�。通過梳理發(fā)現(xiàn)運(yùn)用調(diào)解的方式、按照心證比例判決、降低證明責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、把真?zhèn)尾幻髡J(rèn)定為事實(shí)不存在、運(yùn)用客觀證明責(zé)任規(guī)則的方式處理要件事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鞫际谴嬖诘�。按照調(diào)解方式并未解決爭議問題,最后還是以判決的方式解決爭議糾紛。按照心證比例、降低證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的方式處理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣急壤苄?處理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣\(yùn)用最多的方式是把要件事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻髡J(rèn)定為不存在和運(yùn)用客觀證明責(zé)任規(guī)則方式處理。第三部分:事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣幚矸绞皆u析。處理真?zhèn)尾幻鞯陌讣\(yùn)用調(diào)解方式處理是失敗的,但仍然使用的原因是隨著司法政策的變化,調(diào)解撤訴率成為了評優(yōu)評先進(jìn)的機(jī)制,此外還有其他原因如效率、息訴、防止執(zhí)行難問題等方面有積極的意義,以至于出現(xiàn)追求“零判決”的傾向。論者認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)把握好“能調(diào)則調(diào),當(dāng)判則判”的原則。按照心證比例進(jìn)行裁判與當(dāng)事人進(jìn)行訴訟的目的是不一致的,最重要的是按照此方式使得當(dāng)事人幾乎無法獲得真正勝訴的判決,是以此類方法克服要件事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻魇遣豢扇〉�。對于有些案件中要件事�?shí)因無法獲得證據(jù)使證明存在很大困難時,仍采取高度蓋然性證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn),對被侵權(quán)人來說是不公正的。所以降低證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn),使法官能夠克服一些案件中要件事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻?認(rèn)定因果關(guān)系存在并判決侵權(quán)人賠償是有道理的。但是為追求法的可預(yù)測性,無法普遍適用。當(dāng)法院認(rèn)定案件的事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鞯那闆r下,法院的具體做法是未證明就認(rèn)定為“偽”的方式處理,此方法也是司法實(shí)踐中運(yùn)用最多的處理方式�！蹲C據(jù)規(guī)則》第二條第二款規(guī)定并不是只針對事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鲿r的法律適用,而是與法官心證過程中確認(rèn)事實(shí)為“偽”的情況平等看待,由此可見當(dāng)待證事實(shí)達(dá)到證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時,才能認(rèn)定事實(shí)為“真”,未能達(dá)到證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)就認(rèn)定事實(shí)為“偽”,并使無法證明待證事實(shí)為“真”的一方當(dāng)事人承擔(dān)敗訴后果。該方法恰好與最新《民事訴訟法》司法解釋第一百零八條相契合。運(yùn)用客觀證明責(zé)任處理事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣䲡r存在一些問題:對于何時認(rèn)定真?zhèn)尾幻鞯慕琰c(diǎn)不明確,進(jìn)而出現(xiàn)運(yùn)用錯誤;對于客觀證明責(zé)任由何方承擔(dān),有時法院是不明確的;主觀證明責(zé)任和客觀證明責(zé)任在審判中卻出現(xiàn)混淆;因證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不統(tǒng)一問題,出現(xiàn)了真?zhèn)尾幻鞯恼J(rèn)定寬嚴(yán)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不一,導(dǎo)致個案中事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鞯恼J(rèn)定差異很大。當(dāng)然應(yīng)當(dāng)肯定一些法院恰當(dāng)運(yùn)用該規(guī)則處理真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣?這些法院主要集中在浙江的法院,原因是浙江高級人民法院出臺相應(yīng)規(guī)定。第四部分:司法實(shí)踐中事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻靼讣幚淼慕ㄗh。在法官審判過程中,首先要把握好事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鞒霈F(xiàn)的情況,對于部分案件而言法官可以通過證據(jù)調(diào)查解決真?zhèn)尾幻鲉栴},而對于有些案件合理運(yùn)用推定的方式也是可以解決真?zhèn)尾幻鲉栴};這些都是法官裁判義務(wù)的回歸。其次,確有必要減輕當(dāng)事人證明責(zé)任時,法官要恰當(dāng)運(yùn)用手中的自由裁量權(quán)。具體而言就是按照心證比例方式和降低證明責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方式,以及合理運(yùn)用《證據(jù)規(guī)則》第七條內(nèi)容裁判;最后,在以上方式都無法克服事實(shí)真?zhèn)尾幻鲿r,正確適用客觀證明責(zé)任規(guī)則——最后一根救命稻草的方式處理。我國在適用客觀證明責(zé)任規(guī)則時應(yīng)當(dāng)依據(jù)最新《民事訴訟法》司法解釋第九十一條的規(guī)定進(jìn)行分配。
[Abstract]:On how to deal with the facts and false cases, the theorists find that the theoretical research is mainly in the theoretical introduction and theoretical analysis. The few scholars only pay attention to the case, and the practical circles do not pay attention to the problem in an all-round way. Based on this reason, the author combs the theory of truth and authenticity, and tries to use the case of the Chinese referee's documents on the Internet. On the basis of the analysis of how our civil judicial practice deals with the fact and false cases, the application of relevant theories in our judicial practice is discussed, and some rationalization proposals are put forward for judicial practice. The text is divided into four parts, the main content is as follows: the first part: the fact of the true and false unidentified theory. In the process, both parties have exhausted the necessary means of attack and defense on a certain element of fact or key elements. Before the end of the lawsuit, the judge still can not meet the requirements of the standard of proof to achieve a special heart in the process of the judge's heart evidence. The theory circles and the practical circles have different opinions on how to deal with the facts of unidentified cases. The theoretical circle supports that the best way to deal with the truth and false is that the best way to deal with the facts is to apply the rules of objective proof, while the attitude of the practice is prudent and the objective rules of burden of proof can be applied under the circumstances that all kinds of ways can not be dealt with. And ask the judge to have a great discretion, and the mediation is favored in a certain degree. The second part: the type of handling the facts of unidentified cases. By combing the way of mediation, it is found that the standard of burden of proof is reduced according to the proportion of the heart and soul, and the truth and false are not identified as the fact, and the objective proof is used. In accordance with the way of mediation, the dispute dispute is not solved, and finally the dispute dispute is solved by the way of judgment. The third part: the process of handling the truth and false unidentified cases is a failure, but the reason for the still use is that with the change of the judicial policy, the rate of mediation withdrawal has become the evaluation and evaluation. In addition, the advanced mechanism, in addition to other reasons, such as efficiency, interest, and prevention of difficult problems, is so positive that there is a tendency to pursue "zero judgment". The most important thing is that it makes it impossible for the parties to obtain a true victory in this way. It is unavailable to overcome the authenticity of the facts by such methods. In some cases, when the facts are unable to obtain evidence to make it difficult to prove that there is a great difficulty, it still takes a high degree of probability to prove the standard and not to the infringed. Therefore, it is fair to reduce the standard of proof, so that the judge can overcome the fact that the facts are true and false in some cases, and it is reasonable to determine the existence of the causation and the indemnity of the infringer. But it can not be universally applicable for the predictability of the pursuit of law. When the facts of the case are found to be true and false, the concrete practice of the court is not proved. This method is also the most used method of processing in judicial practice. The rules of "rule of evidence >" the second provisions of the second paragraphs are not only applicable to the law when the facts are not true or false, but are treated equally with the fact that the facts are "false" in the process of the judge's heart card. When the standard of proof is proved, the facts can be identified as "true", and the fact that the facts are "false" fails to reach the standard of proof, and the party who can not prove the fact that the facts are "true" can bear the consequences of losing the lawsuit. This method coincides with the 108th articles of the latest "Civil Procedure Law > judicial interpretation". There are some problems in the case of unidentified authenticity: it is not clear about when to identify the true or false boundary, and then the use of mistakes; sometimes the court is not clear about the responsibility of the objective proof, and the subjective burden of proof and the objective proof responsibility appear in the trial. It is sure that some courts properly use the rules to deal with the true and false cases. These courts are mainly concentrated in the courts of Zhejiang, the reason is that the high people's court in Zhejiang should make a provision. The fourth part: the true and false of the judicial practice. In the process of judge's trial, it is necessary to grasp the truth and authenticity of the truth in the course of the judge's trial. For some cases, the judge can solve the problem of authenticity through evidence investigation, and for some cases, the rational use of presumption can also solve the problem of authenticity and uncertainty; all these are the judges' obligation to judge. Secondly, when it is necessary to reduce the party's burden of proof, the judge should apply the right of discretion properly. In particular, it is in accordance with the proportion of heart evidence and the way of reducing the standard of burden of proof, and the rational use of the rules of evidence to judge the seventh contents; finally, when the truth and false of the facts can not be overcome, it is correct. It is true that the rule of objective proof of responsibility, the last way to save the straw, should be dealt with in the case of the application of the rules of the objective proof of proof in accordance with the provisions of the ninety-first provisions of the latest "Civil Procedure Law > judicial interpretation".
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D925.1
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 霍海紅;證明責(zé)任:一個“功能”的分析[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年05期
2 ;債的存在與清償證明責(zé)任如何分配?[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì);2004年03期
3 茍吉芝;行政證據(jù)證明責(zé)任研究[J];中州學(xué)刊;2005年05期
4 葛自丹;論證明責(zé)任的分配[J];遼寧公安司法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期
5 丁少英;;淺論證明責(zé)任[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)理人;2006年11期
6 趙大偉;;證明責(zé)任與其功能[J];江西社會科學(xué);2006年06期
7 胡學(xué)軍;;證明責(zé)任轉(zhuǎn)換探析[J];上海政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年03期
8 胡戀梅;;民事推定與證明責(zé)任之關(guān)系研究[J];長沙大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2007年01期
9 朱玉玲;;對民事訴訟中證明責(zé)任轉(zhuǎn)移問題的思考[J];甘肅政法成人教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年01期
10 汪靜淵;劉欣佳;;證明責(zé)任分配的原則與適用[J];黑龍江科技信息;2007年06期
相關(guān)會議論文 前7條
1 林越堅(jiān);;論工程造價(jià)的證明責(zé)任和證明責(zé)任合同[A];中國民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2002年
2 伍光紅;;刑事證明責(zé)任主體論綱[A];第三屆廣西青年學(xué)術(shù)年會論文集（社會科學(xué)篇）[C];2004年
3 肖剛;;我國民事訴訟中證明責(zé)任運(yùn)行失范之反思與重構(gòu)[A];全國法院系統(tǒng)第二十二屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會論文集[C];2011年
4 肖萍;洪發(fā)勝;;行政程序證明責(zé)任研究[A];中國法學(xué)會行政法學(xué)研究會2009年年會論文集（上冊）[C];2009年
5 樓韜;;論注冊資金的證明責(zé)任新論[A];中華全國律師協(xié)會經(jīng)濟(jì)業(yè)務(wù)委員會2001年年會論文集[C];2001年
6 張寶來;解輝;;刑事訴訟中證據(jù)合法性證明責(zé)任的實(shí)踐思索——兼談新《刑事訴訟法》頒行后偵查監(jiān)督的推進(jìn)[A];第八屆國家高級檢察官論壇論文集：證據(jù)制度的完善及新要求[C];2012年
7 周素梅;黃勤鑫;;進(jìn)退維谷:民事訴訟真?zhèn)尾幻飨碌姆ü俨昧縖A];全國法院第25屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會獲獎?wù)撐募汗痉ㄅc行政法實(shí)施問題研究（上冊）[C];2013年
相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條
1 胡燕;從此類案件看證明責(zé)任的運(yùn)用[N];人民法院報(bào);2001年
2 堯蔚云;我國證明責(zé)任制度的完善[N];人民法院報(bào);2001年
3 梅雪芳;由本案看證明責(zé)任的分配[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年
4 狄紅紅;試論民事證明責(zé)任的法律性質(zhì)[N];山西經(jīng)濟(jì)日報(bào);2006年
5 北京市東城區(qū)人民檢察院 溫長軍 陳娜;被告人承擔(dān)一定的證明責(zé)任有合理性[N];檢察日報(bào);2009年
6 杜志宏;略論證明責(zé)任分配中的法官自由裁量[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2008年
7 天津市人民檢察院 孫皓;證明責(zé)任分配不存在阿喀琉斯之踵[N];檢察日報(bào);2014年
8 胡斌;淺談證明責(zé)任的分配[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2002年
9 天津市第一中級人民法院 副院長 馮永提;債的存在與清償及其證明責(zé)任分配[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年
10 駱東平 三峽大學(xué)政法學(xué)院;“誰主張，誰舉證”:一個需要澄清的證明責(zé)任分配規(guī)則[N];中國社會科學(xué)報(bào);2010年
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前6條
1 宋朝武;民事證明責(zé)任原理研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2006年
2 霍海紅;民事證明責(zé)任研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年
3 王雄飛;檢察官證明責(zé)任研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年
4 趙俊甫;刑事推定研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年
5 閻朝秀;司法認(rèn)知：法理、規(guī)則、制度研究[D];四川大學(xué);2006年
6 張?jiān)迄i;刑事推定論[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條
1 梁美英;法官裁量型證明責(zé)任分配研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年
2 韓梅;淺析民事證明責(zé)任分配[D];中國政法大學(xué);2006年
3 王曉陽;論證明責(zé)任分配[D];山東大學(xué);2006年
4 王德新;證明責(zé)任適用問題研析[D];中國政法大學(xué);2003年
5 胡華軍;論民事訴訟中的證明責(zé)任及其分配[D];中國政法大學(xué);2004年
6 姚曉;論證明責(zé)任分配的依據(jù)[D];山西大學(xué);2012年
7 毛金玲;論證明責(zé)任契約[D];蘇州大學(xué);2013年
8 覃賢;民事證明責(zé)任分配的司法裁量[D];廣西大學(xué);2013年
9 朱瑞琛;民事證明責(zé)任基礎(chǔ)理論探新[D];山東大學(xué);2014年
10 郭帥;民事證明責(zé)任分配中的法官自由裁量權(quán)[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2015年
，本文編號：2110045
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2110045.html
