本文選題：保證書制度　切入點：誠實原則　出處：《安徽大學》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：民事訴訟保證書制度在我國的設(shè)立,推動了我國誠信訴訟的新發(fā)展。保證書制度所規(guī)定的誠信作證和失信懲戒要求,能有效的提高言詞證據(jù)的真實性,促進案件的順利解決。基于目前立法和司法現(xiàn)狀中呈現(xiàn)的問題,健全保證書制度需有條件的借鑒域外宣誓制度和具結(jié)制度的有效經(jīng)驗,同時需發(fā)揮制度的內(nèi)在修復與外在配合的雙重作用,以便更好實現(xiàn)保證書制度在我國民事訴訟中的價值。分析我國民事訴訟保證書制度,第一要義就是研究制度的價值。保證書制度最大的價值就是貫徹了誠信原則,是誠信原則在民事訴訟程序中制度化的產(chǎn)物,起到了預防不誠信作證的效果。同時,保證書制度完善了言詞證據(jù)制度,通過誠實引導、虛假懲戒的約束和科學合理規(guī)范,彌補了言詞證據(jù)中的主觀性和主體的特殊性所帶來的證明效力弱的缺陷。再就是,保證書制度有助于實現(xiàn)司法公正,通過保證書如實陳述的要求能夠有效的發(fā)現(xiàn)案件事實,維護當事人合法利益,實現(xiàn)了程序公正和實體公正的統(tǒng)一。最后,保證書制度有助于提高司法效率,通過要求當事人和證人誠信訴訟,避免惡意訴訟、虛假訴訟所帶來的資源浪費,更高效的追求事實真相。立法上,關(guān)于保證書制度只在2015年《民事訴訟法司法解釋》中作出了規(guī)定,其中第一百一十條規(guī)定了當事人簽署保證書的相關(guān)內(nèi)容;第一百一十九條和第一百二十條規(guī)定了證人簽署保證書的相關(guān)內(nèi)容。但是對于保證書的簽署主體、簽署時間、文本內(nèi)容、拒簽的法律以及偽證處罰等均規(guī)定的不夠全面。司法上,借鑒宣誓制度有效經(jīng)驗,各地法院紛紛開始探索實踐保證書制度。但是由于立法的不規(guī)范和地域的差異,導致保證書制度的實行存在差別,主要集中于保證書的內(nèi)容和保證書的簽署程序的不同,因此造成了司法混亂的局面。基于立法現(xiàn)狀和司法現(xiàn)狀不難發(fā)現(xiàn)保證書制度在我國存在諸多問題。具體而言,保證書簽署的主體不明確、簽署時間不規(guī)范、保證書格式內(nèi)容不統(tǒng)一、拒簽法律后果不合理以及偽證責任不健全等問題。究其原因,主要是因為司法解釋創(chuàng)設(shè)保證書制度不科學、證人出庭作證制度不完善、證人拒證權(quán)的缺乏和妨害民事訴訟強制措施的空白等原因。為了解決我國民事訴訟保證書制度的適用問題,需要借鑒域外的宣誓制度和具結(jié)制度有效經(jīng)驗的基礎(chǔ)上,對我國民事訴訟保證書制度進行完善。首先需要將保證書制度的司法解釋法律化,應以民事訴訟法的形式將這一重要制度加以確立;再就是對保證書具體制度內(nèi)容的完善,針對問題一一完善,具體包括明確適用主體、規(guī)范簽署時間、統(tǒng)一格式內(nèi)容、具體拒簽后果以及健全偽證責任。最后就是保證書相關(guān)配套制度的建構(gòu)與完善,具體包括建立強制證人出庭作證制度、賦予證人拒證權(quán)和完善妨害民事訴訟強制措施等。
[Abstract]:The establishment of the guarantee system in civil action in our country has promoted the new development of the good faith litigation in our country. The requirement of good faith testimony and dishonest punishment stipulated by the guarantee system can effectively improve the authenticity of the verbal evidence. To promote the smooth resolution of cases. Based on the problems presented in the current legislative and judicial situation, the sound guarantee system needs to draw on the effective experience of the extraterritorial oaths system and the binding system, At the same time, it is necessary to play the dual role of internal repair and external cooperation of the system in order to better realize the value of the guarantee system in the civil litigation of our country. The first important point is to study the value of the system. The greatest value of the guarantee system is the implementation of the principle of good faith, the product of the institutionalization of the principle of good faith in civil proceedings, and the effect of preventing dishonesty from testifying. The guarantee system has perfected the system of verbal evidence. Through honest guidance, the constraint of false punishment and the scientific and reasonable standard, it makes up for the defects of the subjectivity in the verbal evidence and the particularity of the subject. The guarantee system is helpful to the realization of judicial justice, and can effectively discover the facts of the case, safeguard the legitimate interests of the parties, and realize the unification of procedural justice and substantive justice through the requirement of truthful statement of the bond. The guarantee system helps to improve judicial efficiency by requiring parties and witnesses to act in good faith, to avoid the waste of resources brought by malicious litigation and false litigation, and to pursue the truth more efficiently. The guarantee system is only stipulated in the Judicial interpretation of the Civil procedure Law in 2015, in which 110th articles stipulate the relevant contents of the guarantee signed by the parties; Articles 119th and 120th stipulate the relevant contents of the certificate of guarantee signed by the witness. However, for the subject, time and content of the text of the bond, The law of refusing to sign and the punishment of perjury are not comprehensive enough. In judicature, drawing on the effective experience of the oath system, the courts around the country have begun to explore the practice of the guarantee system one after another. However, due to the non-standard legislation and regional differences, This leads to differences in the implementation of the guarantee system, which mainly focuses on the difference in the content of the guarantee and the signing procedure of the guarantee, Based on the current situation of legislation and judicial situation, it is not difficult to find that there are many problems in the guarantee system in our country. In particular, the subject of the bond signature is not clear, and the time of signing is not standardized. The contents of guarantee form are not uniform, the legal consequence of refusing to sign is unreasonable and the liability of perjury is not perfect. The main reasons are that the system of guarantee is not scientific in judicial interpretation, and the system of witness appearing in court is not perfect. In order to solve the problem of the application of guarantee system in civil litigation in China, it is necessary to draw lessons from the effective experience of the oaths system and the binding system in foreign countries. First of all, it is necessary to legalize the judicial interpretation of the guarantee system, which should be established in the form of civil procedure law. Perfect one by one in view of the problems, including defining the applicable subject, standardizing the signing time, unifying the content of the format, the specific consequences of refusing to sign and perfecting the responsibility of perjury. Finally, the construction and perfection of the supporting system related to the guarantee. It includes establishing the system of compulsory witness to testify in court, endowing witness's right of refusing testimony and perfecting compulsory measures of obstruction of civil action, etc.
【學位授予單位】：安徽大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.1

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)博士學位論文 前1條

1 周成泓;論民事訴訟證人證言的調(diào)查[D];西南政法大學;2006年

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前4條

1 馬婷婷;我國民事訴訟證人保證書制度研究[D];海南大學;2016年

2 樊素平;證人證言真實性的程序保障[D];華東政法大學;2016年

3 范偉;民事訴訟證人出庭作證制度研究[D];西南政法大學;2007年

4 曾順濤;證人宣誓制度比較研究[D];四川大學;2005年

，

本文編號：1595936