民事诉讼中摸索证明研究

发布时间：2018-01-09 08:23

本文关键词：民事诉讼中摸索证明研究　出处：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：一般来讲,当事人在提出证据申请时应明确待证事实和证据方法,但是在实践中,会遇到当事人提出证据申请时无法明确待证事实和证据方法的情形,当事人只能提出一般性、抽象性的证据申请,企图通过法院发动证据调查,从对方当事人手中获取证据,并以此证据支持或补充自己的主张,这就是摸索证明的情形。摸索证明是指当事人在未明确待证事实和证据方法情况下,以获取相关信息为目的提出证据申请。“摸索证明”一词源自于德国,并不是立法术语,而是一法解释学概念,是在理论研究和实践中发展而来,大陆法系国家和地区早期基于传统辩论主义、具体化义务、诚信原则等因素考量,禁止摸索证明的适用,随着社会诉讼思潮的涌现,修正辩论主义出现,各种现代型诉讼层出不穷,使得对待摸索证明的态度开始发生变化,不再是绝对禁止,而是趋向于相对缓和,这种态度的转变说明摸索证明有其适用的价值。我国民事诉讼起诉受理制度、证据调查申请制度、证据保全制度中存在许多问题,而摸索证明的引入对解决这些问题有重要意义,摸索证明的引入对我国民事诉讼证据制度有巨大价值。在分析我国证据相关制度存在的问题与提出引入摸索证明必要性后,探讨在我国民事诉讼中应如何引入摸索证明。文章分五个部分进行论述:第一部分介绍摸索证明的基本情况。首先分析了摸索证明概念的含义,通过对摸索证明概念的分析确定了摸索证明的几个基本特征,其次介绍主要大陆法系国家和地区学者对于摸索证明的分类情况,最后通过研究这些学者的分类依据和理由,提出本文对摸索证明的分类意见。第二部分介绍了大陆法系国家和地区对摸索证明态度的变迁历史。主要是介绍缓和表现及分析态度变化原因。早期大陆法系国家和地区对摸索证明采取绝对禁止原则,主要是基于传统辩论主义、具体化义务以及诚信原则等因素的考量。而近代以来,社会化诉讼思潮不断涌现,在此情况下基于传统辩论主义得到一定程度的修正、法官释明权得到重视,当事人协力义务、当事人真实义务以及诉讼经济和诉讼促进五大因素,大陆法系国家和地区不再绝对禁止摸索证明,摸索证明得到一定程度的承认。在此基础上主要介绍了德国、日本和我国台湾地区对摸索证明态度缓和的表现。第三部分表明对摸索证明的态度。指出我国民事诉讼具体制度中存在的问题,同时分析我国引入摸索证明可能性和必要性。首先对我国引入摸索证明表态,其次分析我国民事诉讼具体制度中存在的问题,主要是在起诉受理制度、证据调查申请制度以及证据保全中制度以及证据交换制度中存在的问题。再次我国并不是大陆法系国家,不以辩论主义作为民事诉讼基本原则,在诉讼中采取协同主义,使我国引入摸索证明成为可能。最后提出在我国民事诉讼制度中引入摸索证明有其必要性,摸索证明对我国当代民事诉讼有其独特的价值性,主要体现在适应现代型诉讼、明确证明对象、弥补证明责任分配不足以及扩充当事人证据收集能力等方面。第四部分论述摸索证明在我国民事诉讼中的具体构建。首先明确合法摸索证明标准,其次对摸索证明进行案件类型化分析,最后根据上文分析的相关制度存在的问题,探讨在民事诉讼相关制度中如何适用摸索证明。
[Abstract]:Generally speaking, the parties should clarify the facts to be proved and evidence method is put forward in the application of evidence, but in practice, will encounter the parties to present evidence for the facts to be proved not clear and evidence method, the parties can put forward the general, abstract evidence application, the court attempted to launch evidence investigation, obtain evidence from the hands of the other party, and the evidence to support or supplement their own ideas, it is proved that exploration situation. That means the parties in the exploration is not to prove the facts and evidence of circumstances, to obtain relevant information for evidence for the purpose. "Groping proof" comes from Germany, is not a legal term, but the concept of a method of hermeneutics, which are developed in the theoretical research and practice, civil law countries and regions early traditional debate based on the specific obligation, the principle of good faith etc. In consideration of the ban exploration proves, with the social trend of the emergence of litigation, the amendment adversary, all kinds of modern litigation to prove that emerge in an endless stream, groping attitude began to change, no longer is absolutely prohibited, but tend to be relatively mild, this change in attitude that has its application value that way. The prosecution accepted system China's civil litigation, evidence investigation system of the application, there are many problems in the system of preservation of evidence, and that the introduction of exploration has important significance to solve these problems, explore that introduced is of great value to our country's civil litigation evidence system. In the analysis of existing problems and puts forward relevant evidence system introduced to prove the necessity of groping after to investigate, in the civil procedure in China should explore how to introduce the proof. The article is divided into five parts: the first part introduces the basic situation of the certificate of exploration Condition is analyzed. Explore a proof of concept meaning, some basic characteristics of exploration proved determined through the analysis of the proof of concept exploration, followed by the introduction of the main countries and regions of the civil law scholars for the classification of groping proof, finally through the class basis and reasons for these studies, this paper comments on classification groping proof. The second part introduces the history of exploration that the attitude of civil law countries and regions. The introduction is mainly to ease the performance and analysis the reason of change. The attitude that early exploration of civil law countries and regions take the absolute prohibition principle is mainly based on the traditional adversary, the specific obligation and the principle of good faith and other factors into consideration. And since the modern times continue to emerge, the social action thought, corrected to some extent based on the traditional adversary in this case, the judge's interpretation right to As the duty of cooperation, as well as the true obligation of the parties litigation economy and promote the five major factors, civil law countries and regions is no longer the absolute prohibition of exploration that is recognized to some extent that exploration. This paper introduces Germany, Japan and Taiwan of China on the exploration of conciliatory performance. That indicated in part third of exploration proved attitude. Pointed out the existence of civil litigation in our country the specific problems in the system, at the same time, analysis of China's introduction of exploration proved the possibility and necessity. Firstly, China's introduction of groping proof position, followed by the analysis of our existing civil litigation system in the specific problems, mainly in the prosecution system for the admissibility of evidence investigation and application system the system of preservation of evidence and evidence exchange system in China is not a problem. Once again, the continental law system countries, not to debate as a civil lawsuit The basic principle of litigation, take the principle of cooperation in the process of litigation, so that our country introduces exploration possible. Finally, proof of civil litigation system in China is introduced to prove the necessity of groping, groping demonstrated its unique value in China's contemporary civil litigation, mainly embodied in the adaptation of modern lawsuit, clear the object of proof make up, the allocation of the burden of proof is insufficient and the expansion of the evidence collection ability and so on. The fourth part discusses the exploration that concrete construction of civil litigation in China. Firstly, clarify the legal standard of proof on the second fumble fumble, that in cases of type analysis, finally according to the above analysis of the existing system, discusses how to apply error proof in the civil litigation system.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D925.1

【共引文献】