日本民事诉前证据收集制度研究
发布时间：2018-11-22 17:41
【摘要】：2003年,日本进行了民事诉讼法改革。其中有一项重要的制度叫提诉前情报证据收集制度。所谓提诉前证据收集制度是依据1999年英国的沃尔夫改革所制定的诉前议定书制度、德国1991年的简化司法程序法中导入的独立证据调查程序以及2001年德国民事诉讼法改革中所导入的强制调解制度完成的。这个提诉预告通知制度是为了扩充证据收集手段，是由提诉预告通知制度、以此为前提的提诉前照会制度以及提诉前证据收集处分制度这三个制度组成。 本文首先，介绍了提诉预告通知制度的主要内容。提诉预告通知制度是指欲提起诉讼的通知者向即将成为被告的被通知者，发出即将提起诉讼的通知。欲提起诉讼的当事人以到手的资料为基础来判断是否提起诉讼。提诉前照会制度是指通知者在预告通知之日起4个月内，对被通知者，为诉讼提起后的主张和立证做准备，可以就必要事项进行照会，可以规定期间，并要求书面答复。被通知者应答预告通知之后，基于当事人平等原则，也可以进提诉前照会。4个月的照会期间的起算点不是从应答时算起，而是从预告通知发出时开始算起的。如果应答延迟，那么可照会期间也会变短。这样设置的目的为了促进应答。提诉前的证据收集还有一种方法就是利用法院进行证据收集处分。这就是提诉前证据收集处分制度。通知者以及应答者进行预告通知之后，欲提起诉讼所必要的立证证据是明确的的场合下，可以向法院申请证据收集处分。然后，欲起诉者也即通知者凭借手中的证据资料做出是否起诉的决断。此时，到手的证据资料越多就越可能做出合理的判断。如果根据这些证据做出不予起诉的判断的话，就可以避免无用诉讼。如果决定起诉的话，当事人就可以根据手中的充足的证据资料为审判做准备，以期达到迅捷审理的目的。这些对被通知者同样适用。若他手中搜集到充足的证据资料，便可以做出是否应诉的合理判断。即使应诉以后，必须收集的证据资料很少也可以达到审理迅速的目的。 其次，将与日本民事诉讼改正法所参照的德国法、英国法民事诉讼规则同日本的提诉前证据收集制度进行比较。日本提诉前情报证据收集制度同英国、德国法的制度设计的目的不同，日本的制度设计的目的是为了在诉讼提起后达到迅速审理的目的。 最后，讨论了我国诉前证据保全制度的不足。最后立足于我国民事诉讼法证据收集的现状，以日本提诉前证据收集制度为参考，对我国民事诉讼诉前证据收集制度的建设提出了一些建议。
[Abstract]:In 2003, Japan carried out a civil procedure law reform. There is an important system called pre-prosecution intelligence evidence collection system. The so-called pre-complaint evidence collection system is based on the pre-indictment protocol system established by the Wolfe Reform in the United Kingdom in 1999. The investigation procedure of independent evidence introduced in the simplified judicial procedure law in Germany in 1991 and the compulsory mediation system introduced in the reform of German civil procedure law in 2001. The system of notice of advance notice is to expand the means of collecting evidence. It is composed of three systems: the system of notice of advance notice, the system of pre-appeal note and the system of collecting and disposing of evidence before presentation. First of all, this paper introduces the main contents of notice system. Notice of action notice system means that the notifier who wishes to initiate an action sends out the notice of imminent action to the notifier who is about to become the defendant. The litigant who wishes to initiate an action is based on the available information to determine whether or not to initiate an action. The system of pre-complaint note refers to that the notifier, within 4 months from the date of notice, prepares the person notified for the claim and certificate after the lawsuit has been initiated, may carry out notes on necessary matters, may specify a period of time, and request a written reply. After the notified person responds to the notice, based on the principle of equality of the parties, he may also enter the pre-appeal note. The starting point of the four-month note period is calculated not from the time of the reply, but from the time of the notice of notice. If the response is delayed, the note period will also be shorter. The purpose of this setting is to facilitate response. Another way to collect evidence before bringing a complaint is to use the court to collect evidence. This is the system of evidence collection before prosecution. After the notice is given by the notifier and the Respondent, if the necessary evidential evidence is clear, the court may apply to the court for evidence collection. Then, the prosecutor, that is, the notifier, makes a decision whether to prosecute or not with the evidence in hand. At this point, the more evidence you have, the more likely you are to make a reasonable judgment. Useless litigation can be avoided if such evidence is used as a basis for non-prosecution. If a decision is made to prosecute, the person may prepare for the trial on the basis of sufficient evidentiary information in his possession, with a view to achieving a speedy trial. These also apply to the notified. If he gathers sufficient evidence in his hand, he can make a reasonable judgment as to whether or not to respond. Even after responding to the complaint, very little evidence must be collected for the purpose of speedy trial. Secondly, it compares the rules of civil action with the German law and the rules of civil procedure of English law and the system of collecting evidence before filing in Japan. The system of intelligence evidence collection before prosecution in Japan is different from that of England and Germany. The purpose of the system design in Japan is to reach the goal of prompt trial after the proceedings are initiated. Finally, the paper discusses the deficiency of our country's pre-litigation evidence preservation system. Finally, based on the current situation of evidence collection in China's civil procedure law, some suggestions are put forward for the construction of evidence collection system before litigation in China, based on the evidence collection system before filing suit in Japan.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D931.3;DD915.2
本文编号：2350091
[Abstract]:In 2003, Japan carried out a civil procedure law reform. There is an important system called pre-prosecution intelligence evidence collection system. The so-called pre-complaint evidence collection system is based on the pre-indictment protocol system established by the Wolfe Reform in the United Kingdom in 1999. The investigation procedure of independent evidence introduced in the simplified judicial procedure law in Germany in 1991 and the compulsory mediation system introduced in the reform of German civil procedure law in 2001. The system of notice of advance notice is to expand the means of collecting evidence. It is composed of three systems: the system of notice of advance notice, the system of pre-appeal note and the system of collecting and disposing of evidence before presentation. First of all, this paper introduces the main contents of notice system. Notice of action notice system means that the notifier who wishes to initiate an action sends out the notice of imminent action to the notifier who is about to become the defendant. The litigant who wishes to initiate an action is based on the available information to determine whether or not to initiate an action. The system of pre-complaint note refers to that the notifier, within 4 months from the date of notice, prepares the person notified for the claim and certificate after the lawsuit has been initiated, may carry out notes on necessary matters, may specify a period of time, and request a written reply. After the notified person responds to the notice, based on the principle of equality of the parties, he may also enter the pre-appeal note. The starting point of the four-month note period is calculated not from the time of the reply, but from the time of the notice of notice. If the response is delayed, the note period will also be shorter. The purpose of this setting is to facilitate response. Another way to collect evidence before bringing a complaint is to use the court to collect evidence. This is the system of evidence collection before prosecution. After the notice is given by the notifier and the Respondent, if the necessary evidential evidence is clear, the court may apply to the court for evidence collection. Then, the prosecutor, that is, the notifier, makes a decision whether to prosecute or not with the evidence in hand. At this point, the more evidence you have, the more likely you are to make a reasonable judgment. Useless litigation can be avoided if such evidence is used as a basis for non-prosecution. If a decision is made to prosecute, the person may prepare for the trial on the basis of sufficient evidentiary information in his possession, with a view to achieving a speedy trial. These also apply to the notified. If he gathers sufficient evidence in his hand, he can make a reasonable judgment as to whether or not to respond. Even after responding to the complaint, very little evidence must be collected for the purpose of speedy trial. Secondly, it compares the rules of civil action with the German law and the rules of civil procedure of English law and the system of collecting evidence before filing in Japan. The system of intelligence evidence collection before prosecution in Japan is different from that of England and Germany. The purpose of the system design in Japan is to reach the goal of prompt trial after the proceedings are initiated. Finally, the paper discusses the deficiency of our country's pre-litigation evidence preservation system. Finally, based on the current situation of evidence collection in China's civil procedure law, some suggestions are put forward for the construction of evidence collection system before litigation in China, based on the evidence collection system before filing suit in Japan.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D931.3;DD915.2
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前5条
1 章武生,张大海;论德国的起诉前强制调解制度[J];法商研究;2004年06期
2 和洪;论民事诉讼当事人及其诉讼代理人的取证权[J];甘肃行政学院学报;2004年03期
3 刘春梅;完善我国证据收集制度的若干思考——日本证据收集制度及启示[J];河南省政法管理干部学院学报;2001年06期
4 肖建华;石达理;;日本民事诉讼诉前证据收集制度研究及其借鉴[J];河南省政法管理干部学院学报;2011年01期
5 唐力;;日本民事诉讼证据收集制度及其法理[J];环球法律评论;2007年02期
相关硕士学位论文 前2条
1 杨军;民事证据收集制度研究[D];西南政法大学;2002年
2 薛显仑;国外民事诉前证据收集制度研究及借鉴[D];苏州大学;2010年
，本文编号：2350091
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/falilunwen/2350091.html
