本文選題：民事訴訟　切入點(diǎn)：證據(jù)失權(quán)　出處：《山東師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：證據(jù)失權(quán)制度是民事訴訟法中的一項(xiàng)重要制度,是指法院根據(jù)具體情況確定當(dāng)事人進(jìn)行舉證的法定期間,如果當(dāng)事人沒有在這個(gè)法定期間內(nèi)或者超過(guò)法定期間舉證,當(dāng)事人則失去證據(jù)的提出權(quán),逾期提供的證據(jù)材料也就失去了證明能力。因此,這一制度對(duì)于當(dāng)事人來(lái)說(shuō)至關(guān)重要,它直接影響到以后案件的審判;而對(duì)于法院來(lái)說(shuō),證據(jù)失權(quán)制度能夠督促當(dāng)事人及時(shí)舉證,最大限度的避免訴訟拖延等惡意訴訟現(xiàn)象,進(jìn)而提高訴訟效率、節(jié)約司法資源。這一制度發(fā)展到現(xiàn)在,已經(jīng)得到世界上很多國(guó)家的認(rèn)可,相關(guān)制度的設(shè)置和理論發(fā)展都很成熟。相比較而言,我國(guó)民事證據(jù)失權(quán)制度的發(fā)展在實(shí)踐中遭遇了很多困境。我國(guó)在2002年正式引進(jìn)了這一制度,最高人民法院發(fā)布的《關(guān)于民事訴訟證據(jù)的若干規(guī)定》標(biāo)志著我國(guó)證據(jù)失權(quán)制度的確立。但遺憾的是這一規(guī)定過(guò)于超前,不能符合我國(guó)當(dāng)時(shí)的社會(huì)發(fā)展,因而在實(shí)踐中很難得到貫徹執(zhí)行。在此后,我國(guó)又頒布了諸多法律規(guī)定來(lái)完善這一制度。2012年新民事訴訟法的出臺(tái)以及之后的新民訴法解釋都對(duì)這一制度進(jìn)行了修正,但在實(shí)踐中仍然出現(xiàn)了很多問題,法官在實(shí)際審理中很難遵循法律的相關(guān)規(guī)定,作出證據(jù)失權(quán)的決定。于是我們不禁要問,難道這一制度的存在是不合理的?如果合理,為什么會(huì)出現(xiàn)這些問題呢?是法官對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)的妥協(xié)還是這一制度本身出了問題?這些疑問都說(shuō)明了我國(guó)對(duì)證據(jù)失權(quán)制度的改革遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠,沒有從根本上解決這些問題。筆者正是基于這種思考,提出了以法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)為分析視角,來(lái)重新審視我國(guó)證據(jù)失權(quán)這一制度的觀點(diǎn)。通過(guò)查閱相關(guān)資料,可以看出目前關(guān)于民事訴訟證據(jù)失權(quán)制度的研究已經(jīng)很豐富,相關(guān)理論成果眾多,但以法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)為視角進(jìn)行研究的著作還是比較少的。筆者借助法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的相關(guān)經(jīng)濟(jì)分析工具——對(duì)我國(guó)證據(jù)失權(quán)制度的生成和發(fā)展進(jìn)行新的詮釋,論證民事證據(jù)失權(quán)這一制度存在的正當(dāng)性、合理性,并基于公正與效益價(jià)值的分析對(duì)民事證據(jù)失權(quán)制度的限度進(jìn)行闡釋,進(jìn)而提出適合我國(guó)的相對(duì)最優(yōu)的方案。本文主要從以下幾個(gè)部分展開論述:文章第一部分重點(diǎn)解決兩個(gè)問題:一是先對(duì)證據(jù)失權(quán)制度的相關(guān)理論進(jìn)行概述,說(shuō)明這一制度的基本含義并了解這一制度產(chǎn)生的歷史淵源及發(fā)展歷程;二是對(duì)這一制度進(jìn)行經(jīng)濟(jì)分析,首先闡述法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的基本理論,然后提出了進(jìn)行經(jīng)濟(jì)分析的具體思路,介紹經(jīng)濟(jì)分析的工具,以突出法經(jīng)濟(jì)分析的重要性及必要性。文章第二部分是對(duì)我國(guó)證據(jù)失權(quán)制度的產(chǎn)生及發(fā)展進(jìn)行整體上的法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)詮釋。這一制度在我國(guó)從無(wú)到有、到經(jīng)歷的兩次立法上的變遷,除了理論上的進(jìn)步與革新,其背后與我國(guó)社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展,以及訴訟市場(chǎng)對(duì)該制度的需求也有重大關(guān)聯(lián)。在此部分,我們基于法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的市場(chǎng)供求理論來(lái)進(jìn)行分析。文章第三部分是基于成本與收益的分析方法,分別從成本與收益的角度對(duì)證據(jù)失權(quán)制度進(jìn)行分析,以論證證據(jù)失權(quán)的正當(dāng)性。通過(guò)研究當(dāng)事人訴訟成本的構(gòu)成,分析影響民事訴訟成本的因素,可以進(jìn)一步幫助我們了解民事證據(jù)失權(quán)制度存在的合理性;而對(duì)訴訟效益的分析,以及利用成本收益對(duì)具體案例的闡述,更是體現(xiàn)了這一制度對(duì)實(shí)現(xiàn)訴訟效益最大化的獨(dú)特作用。文章第四部分是本文重點(diǎn)。證據(jù)失權(quán)制度一直面臨實(shí)體公正與程序公正的價(jià)值選擇,筆者基于對(duì)公正效率價(jià)值的平衡性分析,對(duì)證據(jù)失權(quán)制度的限度進(jìn)行了理論上的一般闡述。通過(guò)對(duì)域外其他國(guó)家證據(jù)失權(quán)制度的比較,筆者總結(jié)出幾種失權(quán)模式,并結(jié)合我國(guó)當(dāng)前形勢(shì),對(duì)證據(jù)失權(quán)的司法適用現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行分析,指出其存在的問題。最后提出適合我國(guó)發(fā)展現(xiàn)狀的證據(jù)失權(quán)模式,并對(duì)其進(jìn)一步完善提出相關(guān)的改革措施。
[Abstract]:Evidence of loss of power system is an important system in civil procedure law, refers to the court to determine the statutory period party the burden of proof according to the specific circumstances, if the parties do not in the statutory period or exceed the statutory period of proof, the parties will lose the right to put forward the evidence, evidence for overdue will lose the ability to prove so. And this system is crucial for the parties, which directly affect the future of the trial of the case; and for the court, evidence of loss of the right system to urge the parties concerned in a timely manner of proof, the maximum to avoid delays in the proceedings and other malicious litigation phenomenon, and improve litigation efficiency, saving judicial resources. This system development until now, has been in many countries the world recognized, setting and theoretical development of the related system are very mature. In comparison, our civil proof losing right system in real development In practice encountered many difficulties. China formally introduced this system in 2002, the Supreme People's Court issued the "a number of provisions on evidence in civil proceedings marked the establishment of China's evidence of loss of the right system. But it is a pity that this provision is too advanced, can not meet the social development of our country, and so on in practice it is difficult to be carried out. Thereafter, China has promulgated a lot of laws and regulations to improve the interpretation of the new civil procedure law this system.2012 the new civil procedure law, after the introduction of this system has been modified, but in practice is still a lot of problems, the relevant provisions of the judge in the actual trial it is very difficult to follow the law, make the evidence of loss of the right decision. So we have to ask, is the existence of this system is unreasonable? If reasonable, why is there such a problem? Is a judge of reality also compromise This system is itself a problem? These questions are the reform of our country's loss of the right system of the evidence is not enough, not fundamentally solve these problems. The author is based on this thinking, put forward the law of economics perspective, to re-examine our evidence of loss of the right of this system through the point of view. Access to relevant information, we can see that the current research on the evidence of loss of civil rights system has been very rich, but many related theories, law and economics from the perspective of research work is still relatively small. With the help of related economic law and economics to analyze the generation and development of tools -- of our proof losing right system new interpretation, the legitimacy of the existence of this system of civil evidence proves the rationality of power, and the analysis of justice and benefit value of the civil proof losing right system based on the limits of interpretation, and The relative optimal for our scheme. The thesis includes the following parts: the first part mainly solves two problems: one is related to the theory of loss of the right system of evidence are summarized, explain the basic meaning of this system and understand the historical origin and development process of this system is two; the economic analysis of this system, firstly expounds the basic theory of law and economics, and then puts forward specific ideas for economic analysis, introduces the tools of economic analysis, in order to highlight the importance of economic analysis and necessity. The second part is the interpretation of law and Economics on the whole of the emergence and development of Chinese proof losing right system. This system in our country from scratch, to change two times on the legislative experience, in addition to progress and innovation in theory, and its development behind the social economy in our country, the city and the lawsuit The field of the system demand has great relevance. In this part, we based on the theory of law and economics of supply and demand in the market to carry on the analysis. The third part is the analysis method based on cost and income, respectively from the perspective of cost-benefit analysis of evidence of loss of the right system, the legitimacy of the evidence of loss of the right through. A study on the litigation cost, analysis of factors affecting the cost of civil litigation, can help us to understand further the rationality of civil evidence exists of loss of rights system; and for the benefit of litigation and the use of cost-benefit analysis, the specific cases described, is the embodiment of the unique role of this system in the lawsuit benefit maximization. The fourth part is the focus of this article. Evidence of loss of the right system has been facing substantive justice and procedural justice choice value, the balance of justice and efficiency analysis based on the value of. Proof losing right system limit of the general elaboration theory. Through the comparison of foreign countries proof losing right system, the author summarizes several loss power mode, combined with the current situation of our country, the status of the judicial application of invalidity of evidence analysis, points out the existing problems. Finally, for the current situation of the development of our in the proof losing right mode, and puts forward some reform measures for its further improvement.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 薩齊榮桂,李革新;略論我國(guó)的民事證據(jù)失權(quán)制度[J];前沿;2004年04期

2 李伯安;證據(jù)失權(quán)保障措施初探[J];佛山科學(xué)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年02期

3 潘偉明;;我國(guó)民事證據(jù)失權(quán)制度的反思與重構(gòu)[J];湘潭師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年05期

4 王祥遠(yuǎn);馬瑩瑩;;民事證據(jù)失權(quán)制度的相關(guān)問題探討[J];綏化學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年03期

5 潘葉菁;;論我國(guó)證據(jù)失權(quán)制度[J];企業(yè)家天地下半月刊(理論版);2008年11期

6 章薇;;證據(jù)失權(quán)制度價(jià)值理念研究[J];消費(fèi)導(dǎo)刊;2009年21期

7 任俊琳;王迎朝;;證據(jù)失權(quán)規(guī)則價(jià)值負(fù)效應(yīng)的應(yīng)對(duì)——基于性價(jià)比理論的思考[J];法學(xué)雜志;2011年10期

8 李曉楊;;淺析證據(jù)失權(quán)制度[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬);2012年02期

9 霍元君;韓麗萍;;從程序正義中看民事證據(jù)失權(quán)制度[J];法制與社會(huì);2013年34期

10 顧連鳳;論證據(jù)失權(quán)制度[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年04期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 江蘇省蘇州市中級(jí)人民法院 張蓓邋沈維佳;一審怠于行使訴訟權(quán)利二審舉證可導(dǎo)致證據(jù)失權(quán)[N];人民法院報(bào);2008年

2 余龍昆 江西省吉安市中心人民醫(yī)院;醫(yī)療糾紛訴訟中證據(jù)失權(quán)及防范[N];健康報(bào);2009年

3 紀(jì)敏;全面理解和正確適用證據(jù)失權(quán)[N];人民法院報(bào);2006年

4 華淵;證據(jù)規(guī)則中證據(jù)失權(quán)規(guī)定的不足[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2006年

5 徐東輝;如何處理“足以推翻生效裁判事實(shí)的證據(jù)”[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2006年

6 王 佩;舉證期限延長(zhǎng)有待商榷[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

7 王學(xué)堂;理性訴訟,依法維權(quán)[N];佛山日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

8 李春艷 孫波;先行判決的法律效果界定[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2014年

9 重慶永川市人民法院 徐雄;延長(zhǎng)的調(diào)解期限不應(yīng)計(jì)入舉證期間[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年

10 孔令宏;揚(yáng)州中院涉外商事審判成績(jī)顯著[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 周利;論證據(jù)失權(quán)制度在實(shí)踐中的軟化需求與回應(yīng)[D];西南政法大學(xué);2010年

2 沈鵬娟;我國(guó)民事證據(jù)失權(quán)制度的反思與完善[D];鄭州大學(xué);2012年

3 邵毅;變革中的證據(jù)失權(quán)制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

4 尹衛(wèi)華;我國(guó)現(xiàn)行民事證據(jù)失權(quán)制度研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2016年

5 江丹;論民事庭前會(huì)議的適用及立法完善[D];遼寧大學(xué);2016年

6 魏敏;民事證據(jù)失權(quán)的經(jīng)濟(jì)分析[D];山東師范大學(xué);2017年

7 吳坤;證據(jù)失權(quán)制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年

8 焦棟;論我國(guó)民事證據(jù)失權(quán)制度之完善[D];青島大學(xué);2009年

9 童中樞;民事證據(jù)失權(quán)控制理論研究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2008年

10 朱曉云;論我國(guó)民事證據(jù)失權(quán)制度之完善[D];湘潭大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：1667335