民事诉讼电子数据相关问题研究

发布时间：2018-03-25 00:07

本文选题：电子数据　切入点：保全公证　出处：《沈阳师范大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：在如今的大网络时代，对民事诉讼法和证据法的研究带来了新的挑战与新的问题。2013年新民事诉讼法的修改将“电子数据”作为法定证据种类之一加以明文规定。由于电子数据作为一个新的内容被加入到民事诉讼的证据种类里，但是随着科学技术的发展对其的研究并不是很多，在实践案件中都会看到电子数据的身影，不断出现在诉讼当中，对于认定案件事实起着较为重要的作用。但是由于我国现行法律对电子数据的规定尚不完善，且由于电子数据自身具有的无痕性、易变性、开放性使电子数据极具脆弱性，导致在法学理论上和司法实践中对电子数据的审查标准和证明力的问题没有统一的标准，这就给司法实践带来了很多问题需要解决。从比较电子数据与传统证据的区别，即无形性、载体及外在表现的多样性和易破坏性的特点。电子数据的特殊性决定了在审查电子数据的证明力的时候需要不同于其他传统证据，对其证明力需要特殊审查，并且结合两个案例提出电子数据在审查的时候容易出现的问题，即对有瑕疵的电子数据保全公证证据审查和对电子数据证明力的审查。笔者引用广东中凯文化有限公司诉中国铁通通辽分公司著作权侵权案，在此案列中相同的两审判决中找出两审的法官在叙述判决理由的时候有较大差别，从此案例引出电子数据保全公证证据在存在瑕疵的时候不能片面的适用判决中法官引用的最高人民法院在其发布的《知识产权案件年度报告》（2008年度）中的相关规定，要对公证时的环境、公证的程序以及公证时所使用的电脑进行多方面权衡。笔者引用另一案例“微博第一案”，即金山软件诉奇虎360周某名誉权侵权案，，对于这个有关微博平台的第一个侵权案件，由于两审法官对于电子数据—微博的证明力的理解不同导致了一审与二审的判决有较大差别，从这个差别中，笔者提出问题，对于类似电子数据在其与公民的基本权利相冲突的时候如何平衡二者的关系，文中笔者做了详细阐述。
[Abstract]:In today's big internet age, The study of the civil procedure law and the evidence law has brought new challenges and problems. The amendment of the new civil procedure law in 2013 explicitly stipulated "electronic data" as one of the categories of statutory evidence. New content has been added to the categories of evidence in civil proceedings, However, with the development of science and technology, there is not much research on it. Electronic data will be seen in practical cases and will continue to appear in litigation. It plays an important role in determining the facts of the case. However, because the current laws of our country are not perfect for electronic data, and because the electronic data itself is traceless and volatile, the openness of electronic data makes electronic data extremely fragile. As a result, there is no uniform standard for examining and proving the electronic data in the legal theory and judicial practice, which brings many problems to be solved in the judicial practice. By comparing the difference between electronic data and traditional evidence, that is, invisibility, The diversity and destructive characteristics of carrier and external performance. The particularity of electronic data determines that when examining the proof of electronic data, it is different from other traditional evidence, and the proof of electronic data needs special examination. Combined with two cases, this paper puts forward the problems that are easy to appear in the examination of electronic data, that is, to examine the notarization evidence of defective electronic data and the power of proof of electronic data. The author cites Guangdong Zhongkai Culture Co., Ltd. v. China Tietong Tongliao Branch copyright infringement case. In the same two-instance judgment listed in this case, the author finds out that the judge of the second instance has great differences in describing the reasons for the judgment. This case leads to the relevant provisions of the Supreme people's Court cited by the Supreme people's Court in its publication of the Annual report on intellectual property cases issued by the Supreme people's Court in 2008, which cannot be unilaterally applied when there are defects in the notarial evidence of electronic data preservation. The environment of notarization, notarization procedure and the computer used in notarization should be weighed in many aspects. The author cites another case, "Weibo's first case," that is, Jinshan Software v. Qihoo 360 Zhou Mou's right of reputation infringement case, for this first infringement case concerning Weibo platform, Due to the fact that the judges of the two trials have different understanding of the power of proof of electronic data-#china_person0#, there is a great difference between the judgments of the first instance and the second instance. From this difference, the author raises a question. How to balance the relationship between electronic data and citizens' basic rights is discussed in detail.
【学位授予单位】：沈阳师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】