【摘要】：民事證明責(zé)任在民事法律以及民事訴訟活動中處于核心地位，而證明責(zé)任的分配問題則是核心中的核心。長久以來各國的法學(xué)家以及學(xué)者們都對這個問題孜孜以求，雖然至今仍然沒有一種理論與學(xué)說能夠完美的對證明責(zé)任進(jìn)行分配，但是證明責(zé)任因為其特殊的功能作用，在審判實踐中具有重要意義。“證明責(zé)任之所在，敗訴之所在”的法諺是其重要性的集中體現(xiàn)。根據(jù)我國民事訴訟法的有關(guān)規(guī)定，我國法律中的證明責(zé)任被劃分為兩層含義，行為意義上的證明責(zé)任，即誰提出主張誰就必須提供證據(jù)對其主張加以證明；結(jié)果意義上的證明責(zé)任，即在案件事實處于真?zhèn)尾幻鳡顟B(tài)時舉證不利一方當(dāng)事人承擔(dān)敗訴后果。所以，當(dāng)事人在訴訟中必須承擔(dān)對于自己主張的證明責(zé)任，并且在事實真?zhèn)尾幻鲿r舉證不利一方當(dāng)事人需要承擔(dān)敗訴后果。據(jù)此，案件事實的認(rèn)定是其中重要環(huán)節(jié)，法官在審判實踐中，運用經(jīng)驗法則和邏輯判斷，對相關(guān)證據(jù)分析歸納，作出評價，最后形成關(guān)于案件事實的具體確信。當(dāng)這種具體的確信達(dá)到最低心證限度，即法定證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時，才能夠判斷案件事實究竟為真還是為假。如果一旦由于證據(jù)不足導(dǎo)致法官內(nèi)心確信用盡也無法認(rèn)定案件事實，，即案件事實處于真?zhèn)尾幻鳡顟B(tài)時，那么證明責(zé)任相關(guān)規(guī)范能夠幫助法官明確裁判何方當(dāng)事人敗訴。 本文通過對一起存單權(quán)利糾紛案的分析，明確了兩級法院在對本案處理過程中存在的問題，并且分析了本案由于證據(jù)不足導(dǎo)致案件真相無法查清，應(yīng)該適用證明責(zé)任相關(guān)規(guī)范對其進(jìn)行解決。在證明責(zé)任規(guī)則的適用中，分析了本案證明責(zé)任的分配問題，并最終形成了筆者對該案件的結(jié)論，希望能夠?qū)Υ祟惏讣慕鉀Q提供有益的思考。 本文共分四部分，第一部分主要介紹了相關(guān)案情和法院的判決，并且提出了案件的爭議焦點，明確了爭議問題。第二部分通過對兩級法院事實認(rèn)定部分的分析，提出異議并且形成對案件事實部分的認(rèn)定，確認(rèn)本案事實處于真?zhèn)尾幻鞯臓顟B(tài)。第三部分明確本案符合適用證明責(zé)任規(guī)范的條件，并且對本案的證明責(zé)任加以分析。第四部分是筆者通過以上分析形成對于本案的爭議焦點以及相關(guān)問題的最終結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:Civil burden of proof is the core of civil law and civil litigation, and the distribution of burden of proof is the core of the core. For a long time jurists and scholars all over the world have been striving for this issue. Although there is still no theory and doctrine that can perfectly distribute the burden of proof, but the burden of proof is due to its special function. It is of great significance in trial practice. The legal saying "the burden of proof lies, the failure" is a central embodiment of its importance. According to the relevant provisions of our civil procedure law, the burden of proof in our country's law is divided into two meanings, that is, the burden of proof in the meaning of behavior, that is, the person who claims must provide evidence to prove his claim; The burden of proof in the sense of result is that when the facts of the case are in the state of truth or not, the unfavorable party bears the consequences of losing the case. Therefore, the litigant must bear the burden of proof for his claim in the lawsuit, and one party must bear the consequences of losing the lawsuit when the facts are not true or false. Therefore, the determination of the facts of the case is one of the important links. In the trial practice, the judge applies the rule of experience and logic judgment, analyzes and concludes the relevant evidence, makes an evaluation, and finally forms the concrete conviction about the facts of the case. When this concrete conviction reaches the minimum evidentiary limit, that is, the legal standard of proof, it is possible to judge whether the facts of the case are true or false. If the judge is convinced that the facts of the case are exhausted because of the lack of evidence, that is, the facts of the case are in a state of uncertainty, then the relevant norms of burden of proof can help the judge to make clear which party has lost the case. By analyzing a dispute over certificate of deposit rights, this paper clarifies the problems existing in the process of handling this case by the two levels of court, and analyses the fact that the case cannot be found out because of insufficient evidence. It should be resolved by applying the relevant norms of the burden of proof. In the application of the rules of burden of proof, this paper analyzes the distribution of the burden of proof in this case, and finally forms the author's conclusion on the case, hoping to provide useful thinking for the solution of this kind of case. This paper is divided into four parts. The first part mainly introduces the relevant cases and court decisions, and puts forward the dispute focus of the case, and clarifies the controversial issues. The second part through the analysis of the two levels of the court facts, put forward objections and form the case of the facts part of the determination, confirm that the facts of the case is in a state of uncertainty. The third part clarifies that this case conforms to the condition of applying the criterion of burden of proof, and analyzes the burden of proof in this case. The fourth part is the author through the above analysis to form the focus of the case and related issues of the final conclusion.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：沈陽師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 肖建華,王德新;證明責(zé)任判決的裁判方法論意義——兼評傳統(tǒng)證明責(zé)任觀之謬誤[J];北京科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2005年02期

2 霍海紅;;論證明責(zé)任機(jī)制的限度[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2008年03期

3 李浩;;民事訴訟程序權(quán)利的保障:問題與對策[J];法商研究;2007年03期

4 劉春梅;論自由心證與法定證據(jù)之關(guān)系[J];湖湘論壇;2004年05期

5 李浩;;舉證時限制度的困境與出路——追問證據(jù)失權(quán)的正義性[J];中國法學(xué);2005年03期

本文編號：2183867