论当事人案件事实解明义务

发布时间：2018-05-03 04:09

本文选题：事实解明义务 + 协同主义　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：为保障法的安定性，，证明责任分配法则作出了原则性规定。实务中，当事人具备的能力有差异从而导致举证能力的不平等，在某些特殊案件中这种不平等性尤为明显，如何实现当事人间实质武器平等便成为一挑战。为解决此难题，大多传统大陆法系国家和地区尝试开拓新思路，探讨当事人案件事实解明义务的生存空间。我国审判实践对该问题的处理方式不一，理论上又缺乏相应的制度完善。本文运用比较分析和理论联系实际的方法论证当事人案件事实解明义务的相关问题，以期在借鉴域外经验的基础上，结合我国实际，对构建当事人案件事实解明义务的相关规则有所裨益。本文正文共三万余字，分成四部分：第一部分：当事人案件事实解明义务基础理论。案件事实解明义务指负证明责任一方对案件事实进行确定性主张后，对方为厘清事实负有就对其有利与不利的事实的陈述说明义务，及为厘清事实而提出相关证据资料或忍受勘验的义务。主要从发生时点、设定目的、履行方式、功能特点方面加以把握。在与摸索证明、具体化义务、证明责任转换、证明必要等分析比较的基础上，厘清各自适用情形。案件事实解明义务伴随协同主义诉讼构造应运而生。将其定位为诉讼义务，并对义务说进行必要的修正。仅在例外情形，基于诚信原则、公平正义，方课以当事人案件事实解明义务。第二部分：当事人案件事实解明义务正当性依据。主要从目的论、本质论及原则层面加以阐述。为实现诉讼的公共使命，发现案件真实，保障实质武器平等，贯彻诚实信用原则，当事人于必要时应负担该义务。第三部分：当事人案件事实解明义务内容构成。主要从适用条件、履行方式、法律效果方面论述。特定要件即负证明责任一方客观上处于证明困难，主观上不具过错；需解明对象与权利主张具备相关性、合理性；不负证明责任一方对解明事实具有期待可能性。当事人以陈述方式履行解明义务，需负一定程度的“探知义务”；仅在合理预期时负有作成、保管特定证据的义务；亲子鉴定中，仅在必要、合适且具期待可能性时，方有忍受勘验的义务。违反义务时，法官应凭借自由裁量权依不同履行方式课以不同制裁，并在法律效果中作出选择。第四部分：当事人案件事实解明义务在我国的具体构建。现行制度证据收集手段匮乏，故我国有确立案件事实解明义务的必要性。法官自由裁量权的灵活把握及释明义务的履行为案件事实解明义务的实现提供可行性基础。立法上的空白、不完善，导致司法实践处理类似案件方式不一，亟需完善案件事实解明义务的相关规则。从法解释论上确立该规则，并结合我国法律制度，明确其适用原则、适用条件、履行方式及法律效果的选择，在充分保障当事人程序权益的基础上构建具体规则。
[Abstract]:In order to ensure the stability of the law, the law of the distribution of burden of proof made the principle of regulation. In practice, there are differences in the ability of the parties, which leads to the inequality of the ability of proof. In some special cases, this inequality is especially obvious. How to achieve the substantive equality of weapons between the parties becomes a challenge. In order to solve this problem, most countries and regions of traditional civil law system try to open up new ideas and explore the living space of the parties' case fact explanation obligation. There are different ways to deal with this problem in our country's trial practice, and the corresponding system is lacking in theory. This article uses the method of comparative analysis and theory combined with practice to prove the relevant problems of the parties' case facts to explain their obligations, in order to draw lessons from the experience of foreign countries and combine with the reality of our country. It is beneficial to the construction of the relevant rules of the party's case fact explanation obligation. There are more than 30,000 words in the text of this paper, which are divided into four parts: The first part: the basic theory of party's case fact explanation obligation. The obligation to explain the facts of a case means that after the party responsible for proving the facts of the case claims certainty on the facts of the case, the other party has the obligation to state the facts that are beneficial or unfavorable to him in order to clarify the facts, And the obligation to present relevant evidence or to endure an inquest in order to clarify the facts. Mainly from the point of occurrence, set purpose, performance mode, functional characteristics to grasp. On the basis of analysis and comparison with trial proof, concrete obligation, burden of proof conversion, proof necessity and so on, this paper clarifies the respective applicable situation. The obligation of explaining the facts of the case comes into being with the construction of synergetic litigation. Position it as litigation obligation, and make necessary amendment to obligation theory. Only in exceptional cases, based on the principle of good faith, fairness and justice, the party should explain the facts of the case. The second part: the parties'case facts explain the legitimate basis of obligations. Mainly from the perspective of teleology, essence and principle. In order to realize the public mission of litigation, to find out the truth of the case, to guarantee the equality of substantive weapons and to carry out the principle of good faith, the parties concerned should bear the obligation when necessary. The third part: the content composition of the party's case fact explanation obligation. Mainly from the application conditions, the way of performance, the legal effect of the discussion. The specific requirement is that the party who bears the burden of proof is objectively difficult to prove and has no fault subjectively; it is necessary to understand that the object is related to the claim and is reasonable; that the party responsible for proof has the possibility of anticipating the explanation of facts. If the parties concerned perform their obligations of explanation by way of statement, they will have to bear a certain degree of "duty of discovery"; only when reasonably expected, they have the obligation to act and keep the specified evidence; and in paternity testing, only when necessary, appropriate, and expected to be possible, There is an obligation to endure an inquest. In case of breach of obligation, the judge should, by virtue of discretion, impose different sanctions according to different ways of performance and make a choice in the legal effect. The fourth part: the concrete construction of party's case fact explanation obligation in our country. The current system of evidence collection means is scarce, so it is necessary for China to establish the duty of explaining the facts of cases. The flexible grasp of the judge's discretion and the implementation of the interpretation obligation provide a feasible basis for the realization of the obligation to explain the facts of a case. The blank and imperfect legislation leads to different ways of dealing with similar cases in judicial practice, and it is urgent to perfect the relevant rules of explaining the obligations of the facts of cases. This rule is established from the theory of interpretation of law, combined with our country's legal system, the choice of its applicable principles, applicable conditions, ways of performance and legal effects is made clear, and the concrete rules are constructed on the basis of fully protecting the procedural rights and interests of the parties concerned.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】