民事诉讼当事人收集证据制度研究

发布时间：2018-04-24 13:40

本文选题：民事诉讼 + 证据　；参考：《中国政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：民事诉讼当事人收集证据是指在民事诉讼中,当事人为查明或证明待定的事实,运用适当的方法去寻找、发现、获取各种证据材料的一种诉讼活动。它是当事人行使证明权的一种方式。1991年的《民事诉讼法》首次对当事人的收集证据权进行了规定,即“当事人有权委托代理人,提出回避申请,收集、提供证据,进行辩论,请求调解,提起上诉,中请执行。”但对于当事人在收集证据时具体可以采用的方法,相关法律在语言上对其表述地比较原则,在体系上对其规定地相当混乱。从法条数量上看,规定收集证据的条文,在证据的条文总数中所占比重较低。《民事诉讼法》中涉及证据一词的地方有20条30处,直接涉及当事人收集证据的字眼只有1处；《证据规定》共83条,只有26条与收集证据有关,在这26条规定中,大部分是关于法院调查取证的描述,在当事人如何收集证据方面只有原则性的粗略规定。从完整性上看,我国当前的收集证据制度没有规定取证对象拒绝作证的法律后果,也即对于取证主体的取证权没有法律威慑力作后盾。从体系上来看,申请人民法院调查收集证据、申请鉴定、证据交换这些收集证据方法是在证据一章中加以规定的,而查阅、复制卷宗材料这种收集证据方法却被规定在诉讼参加人一章中。由此可以看出现行的收集证据制度内容之不健全,体系之紊乱。这也就使收集证据权论为一种权利的招牌,造成实践中取证难、取证乱的现象。对我国收集证据制度进行反思和完善,改变当事人收集证据手段的贫乏现状已成为当前亟待解决的问题。本文中,笔者主要运用了规范分析,历史考察,比较分析,体系分析等方法对收集证据制度加以研究。本文主要由引言、正文、结论三部分组成。正文分为四章：第一章分析了当事人收集证据行为的含义和性质,指出当事人收集证据是一种权利而不是义务或者责任,辨析了其与相关证据制度的关系。第二章分析了我国当事人收集证据制度的历史沿革和现状。将我国民事收集证据制度的演变分为三个时段,分析了收集证据制度的发展,从宏观和微观两个层面剖析了目前仍然存在的问题,并对造成现有问题的原因进行了法理层面的分析。第三章是采用比较法的方法分析了两大法系主要国家的收集证据制度,并对其各自的特点进行了评价,总结了其中的立法经验。第四章从完善当事人收集证据的具体方法、建立当事人收集证据的保障体系两个方面,提出了完善我国民事诉讼当事人收集证据制度的构想。笔者认为,完善当事人收集证据的具体方法应当包括完善当事人陈述收集制度、建立实物证据强制提出命令制度、完善证人证言收集制度三个方面。当事人收集证据的保障体系包括观念革新,取证主体的保障措施,取证对象的保障措施三方面,并结合证明责任、证明标准进行了论述。本文的创新点有三：第一,对收集证据行为的性质分析。关于当事人收集证据行为的性质探讨,主要解决的是收集证据行为对于收集证据主体而言,是一项能够对收集证据对象独立行使的强制力量,还是为完成举证责任而不得不为之的义务,抑或是一种可以自由支配的行为资格。对收集证据行为性质的界定直接关乎法律对收集证据制度的规定。笔者认为,强调收集证据行为的权利性质,会引导在设置收集证据制度时将重点放在当事人收集证据手段的扩充上,而不是一味地强调收集证据应该遵循的规范。第二,将收集证据制度与其他证据制度进行比较。收集证据制度不是一个孤立的存在,它与其他证据制度有着紧密的联系,尤其是与证明责任和证明标准。目前收集证据制度从宏观上来看,与证明责任、证明标准的有关规定相冲突。完善当事人收集证据制度,不仅可以从收集证据方法入手,还可以结合证明责任和证明标准,来缓解当事人收集证据的压力。第三,有关收集证据制度完善的方法。笔者比较看重当事人陈述和证人证言这类言辞证据的收集。当事人陈述包含了大量的信息,对于查明事实具有重大的作用。很多国家都规定了当事人陈述此类证据的收集。在我国,当事人陈述虽然也作为一种独立的证据形式,但是法律并没有规定如何收集此类证据。笔者认为,可以建立一个当事人互相询问的程序,通过此程序打开收集证据的大门,为当事人收集更多的证据指明方向。关于证人证言的收集,很多著作都将重点放在如何规范证人出庭作证方面,但笔者认为,证人出庭作证并不属于收集证据,而属于庭审中的质证环节,对于证人证言的收集应该在庭前进行,可以通过笔录证言的方式收集。
[Abstract]:The parties to collect evidence in civil litigation refers to a litigation activity in which the parties seek, find, and obtain all kinds of evidence in order to find out or prove the undetermined facts in civil proceedings. It is a way for the parties to exercise the right of proof for the first time, the Civil Procedure Law of.1991, for the first time to collect evidence of the parties. It has been stipulated that "the party has the right to entrust an agent, put forward an application for avoidance, collect, provide evidence, debate, ask for mediation, and bring an appeal, please execute it." but the law can be used in the collection of evidence, and the relevant laws are in the language to compare the principles and to the system.
When chaos.
In terms of the number of laws, the provisions for the collection of evidence are relatively low in the total number of articles in the evidence. There are 20 places and 30 places in the "Civil Procedure Law" involving evidence, directly involving only 1 words for the parties to collect evidence; < < evidence > > there are 83 articles, and only 26 are related to the collection of evidence. In these 26 provisions, the majority of the provisions are in the majority. It is about the description of the court investigation and forensics, and there is only a rough rule on how the parties collect evidence. In terms of integrity, the current collection evidence system in our country does not stipulate the legal consequences of the refusal to testify by the object of evidence, that is, there is no legal deterrent to the evidence right of the subject of evidence. The people's court asks the people's court to investigate and collect evidence, to apply for identification, and to exchange these methods of collecting evidence in the chapter of evidence, and the method of collecting evidence for the collection of files is stipulated in the chapter of the litigant participants. Thus, it can be seen that the current collection of evidence system is not perfect and the system is disorganized. The right to collect evidence is regarded as a sign of rights, which leads to the difficulty of obtaining evidence and the confusion of evidence collection in practice.
To reflect and improve the collection of evidence system in China, changing the poor status of the parties to collect evidence has become an urgent problem to be solved. In this paper, the author mainly uses the methods of normative analysis, historical investigation, comparative analysis, system analysis and other methods to study the collection of evidence.
This paper is mainly composed of three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. The text is divided into four chapters.
The first chapter analyzes the meaning and nature of the party's collection of evidence, and points out that the party's collection of evidence is a right, not the obligation or responsibility, and the relationship between the parties and the relevant evidence system.
The second chapter analyzes the historical evolution and present situation of the party collecting evidence system in China. It divides the evolution of the civil evidence collection system into three periods, analyzes the development of the evidence collection system, and analyses the existing problems from the macro and micro levels in two levels, and carries out the legal level of the reasons for the existing problems. Analysis.
The third chapter is to analyze the collection evidence system of the main countries of the two legal systems by comparative method, and evaluate their respective characteristics, and summarize the legislative experience.
The fourth chapter, from the two aspects of perfecting the concrete methods of collecting evidence by the parties and establishing the guarantee system for the parties to collect evidence, puts forward the idea of improving the collection of evidence system by the civil litigants in our country. The author holds that the concrete methods for improving the parties' collection of evidence should include the perfection of the parties' statement and collection system and the establishment of physical evidence. It is mandatory to put forward the order system and improve the system of witness testimony collection. The protection system of the evidence collection of the parties includes the innovation of ideas, the safeguard measures of the subject of evidence, the three aspects of the guarantee measures of the object of evidence, and the proof of the burden of proof, and the proof of the standard has been proved.
The innovation points of this article are three: first, the nature of the behavior of collecting evidence is analyzed. The nature of the behavior of the parties to collect evidence is discussed. The main solution is to collect evidence for the collection of evidence subject, which is a compulsory force for the independent exercise of the object of evidence collection, or for the completion of the burden of proof. The definition of the nature of the collection of evidence is directly related to the provisions of the law on the collection of evidence. The author holds that the emphasis on the nature of the right to collect evidence will lead to the expansion of the parties' collection of evidence in the collection of evidence system, rather than the expansion of the means of evidence collection by the parties. Second, compare the collection of evidence system with other evidence systems. The collection of evidence is not an isolated existence, it has a close connection with other evidence systems, especially the burden of proof and the standard of proof. At present, the collection of evidence system from the macro perspective, and the burden of proof. In order to improve the parties' collection of evidence system, the parties can not only start with the collection of evidence methods, but also combine the burden of proof and the standard of proof to alleviate the pressure on the parties to collect evidence. Third, the methods to improve the collection of evidence system. The author pays more attention to the parties' statement and witness testimony. The parties' statement contains a large amount of information, which has a significant role to identify the facts. Many countries have stipulated the parties' collection of such evidence. In our country, the parties' statements are also an independent form of evidence, but the law does not stipulate how to collect such evidence. In order to establish a procedure for the mutual inquiries of the parties, this procedure opens the door to the collection of evidence and collects more evidence for the parties. On the collection of witness testimony, many of the books will focus on how to standardize the testimony of witnesses, but the author believes that the testimony of the witness does not belong to the collection of evidence, but it belongs to the witness. The collection of witnesses' testimony should be carried out before the court in the cross examination section of the trial, and can be collected through written testimony.

【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】