间接否认义务化研究

发布时间：2018-06-10 01:28

本文选题：间接否认 + 义务化　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：民事诉讼之间接否认（亦称附理由的否认），主要是探讨在民事诉讼过程中，非负证明责任之一造当事人对他造当事人之主张进行否认时，，不仅仅是为简单之否认，同时还附加了一定的理由。那么，这样一种做法是否应适用于一般的民事纠纷中呢？也即，是否对于所有非负证明责任之当事人，在对他造当事人之主张进行否认时都应当附加理由呢？间接否认是否应当作为非负举证责任之当事人的一项义务？关于此问题，在德国、日本以及我国台湾地区的理论与实务界均有探讨。其中，尤以德国为甚，它不仅仅在理论上有大量探讨，亦在立法中予以明确规定。要展开对此问题之讨论，关涉诸多方面。其不仅与民事诉讼之目的有关，亦和诚实信用原则有关，还涉及到辩论主义之相关理论问题。而最为困难者，莫过于间接否认义务化与辩论主义基本理论之冲突的调和，包括：当事人间接否认义务化会否加重其负担？间接否认义务化会否与处分原则相抵触？间接否认义务化会否动摇当事人在诉讼中的主体地位，使其沦为诉讼中提供证据的工具？诸多问题值得探讨。我国并没有关于当事人间接否认义务化之规定，关于这一问题之探讨亦是十分有限。虽司法实务界对当事人仅为简单之否认给整个民事诉讼进程带来之消极影响亦有所认识，诸如诉讼迟延问题、争点总结难问题、法庭证据调查效率低等问题。然我国理论与实务界似对将此作为一专门问题予以研究兴趣不大。本文借由对德国、日本及我国台湾地区关于此问题之文献、制度规定的研究，以及该制度在上述国家或地区之民事诉讼法上的定位分析，进而尝试将我国法律之特殊因素纳入考量之。希望借由此，引起大家对此种民事诉讼之重要制度的关注与重视，肯定其在限缩当事人间争点、帮助法院进行充实有效的证据调查等方面之积极作用。本文主要分为五个部分：第一部分，是间接否认基本情况的介绍。主要讨论间接否认之内涵、其容易混淆的周边概念及其功能，其中将重点讨论间接否认、抗辩与自认之间的内在联系和区别。通过此部分的讨论，厘清基本概念，为间接否认义务化的展开奠定基础。第二部分，将展开对间接否认义务化之确立依据的探讨。此部分主要介绍德国、日本及我国台湾地区关于该问题的理论与实践以及其他关于间接否认依据的探讨。借此，对间接否认在域外的实施情况及依据有所了解。第三部分，在对间接否认义务之域外适用情况有一个大致的了解之后将会谈到间接否认义务化的适用问题，包括间接否认义务的法律定位、适用对象、适用前提、适用范围。第四部分，将重点分析间接否认义务化过程中所面临的一些难题，并对其进行分析，以解开对间接否认义务化所带来之不利影响的疑虑。第五部分主要讨论间接否人义务化的中国思考。在分析我国民事诉讼现状的基础上，对间接否认义务化的中国适用展开讨论，提出构想。
[Abstract]:The denial of civil litigation (also called the denial of the reason) is mainly to discuss whether one of the non negative burden of proof in the process of civil litigation is not merely for simple denial when one of the non negative burden of proof is made to deny the claims of his parties, but also a certain reason is added. In other words, is it necessary to add reasons to all non negative parties in denying his party's claim? Is it an obligation to indirectly deny whether it should be a party to the non negative burden of proof? On this issue, both theory and practice in Germany, Japan, and the Taiwan region of our country Among them, especially Germany, it has not only been discussed in theory, but also been clearly stipulated in legislation.
There are many aspects to be discussed. It is not only related to the purpose of civil litigation, but also related to the principle of good faith, but also related to the relevant theoretical issues of the debate doctrine. The most difficult one is the harmonization of the conflict between the indirect denial of obligation and the basic theory of the debating doctrine, including the obligation of the parties to deny the basic theory. Will indirect denial of denial be incompatible with the principle of disposition? Indirect denial of denial will shake the party's main position in the lawsuit and make it a tool to provide evidence in litigation? Many problems deserve to be discussed.
There are no provisions on the indirect denial of denial of the parties in our country, and the discussion on this question is also very limited. Although the judicial practice circles also have a certain understanding of the negative influence of the simple denial to the whole civil procedure process, such as the problem of litigation delay, the difficult point of dispute, the low efficiency of the court evidence investigation. However, our country's theory and practice circles seem to have little interest in studying this as a special issue. This article is based on the literature on this issue in Germany, Japan and the Taiwan region of our country, the research on the regulations of the system, and the position of the system in the Civil Procedure Law of the above countries or regions, and then try to make the law of our country special. Many factors are taken into consideration. I hope that by this, we should pay attention to the important system of this civil action, and affirm its positive role in limiting the dispute between the parties and helping the court to carry out an effective and effective evidence investigation.
This article is divided into five parts:
The first part is the introduction of the indirect denial of the basic situation. It mainly discusses the connotation of indirect denial, its confusing peripheral concepts and its functions, which will focus on the internal relations and differences between indirect denial, defense and self recognition. Through the discussion of this part, we will clarify the basic concepts and lay the foundation for the expansion of the indirect denial of denial.
The second part will discuss the basis of the establishment of the indirect denial of denial. This part mainly introduces the theory and practice of the issue in Germany, Japan and the Taiwan region of our country, as well as other discussions on the basis of indirect denial.
The third part, after a general understanding of the extraterritorial application of the indirect denial obligation, will talk about the application of the indirect denial of denial, including the legal position, the applicable object, the applicable premise and the scope of application of the indirect denial obligation.
In the fourth part, we will focus on the analysis of some problems in the process of the indirect denial of denial, and analyze them in order to dissolve the doubts about the adverse effects of the indirect denial of denial.
The fifth part mainly discusses the indirect Chinese thinking of non person compulsory. On the basis of the analysis of the status of civil litigation in China, it discusses the application of indirect denial of obligation in China and puts forward some ideas.
【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】：D915.2

【参考文献】