预决事实无需证明的法理基础与适用规则

发布时间：2018-06-26 19:24

本文选题：预决效力 + 既判力遮断效　；参考：《法律科学(西北政法大学学报)》2017年02期

【摘要】：最高法院创建“预决事项无需证明”证据规则时,由于理论基础不明,制度逻辑不能自洽,不仅给学理解释造成障碍,而且导致审判上适用的不统一,在客观上有损司法公正。前诉裁判认定的事实后诉法院可以直接认定,即判决的预决效力,既不同于司法认知或公文书载明的事实,亦不能简单地用诉讼上诚实信用原则来解释,本质上是“不容再争议性”。大陆法系既判力遮断效和英美法系争点排除效都是关于前诉裁判对争议事实的判断对后诉所应有的约束力,虽然在理论表述上各有侧重,但在制度上高度重合,体现了司法的内在规律,堪为预决效力的法理基础。就二者取长补短,可以建构统一的预决效力生成要件和预决事实免于证明的适用规则。
[Abstract]:When the Supreme Court created the evidence rule of "Pre-judgment matter without proof", because of the unclear theoretical basis, the system logic could not agree with itself, which not only caused obstacles to theoretical interpretation, but also led to the disunity of trial application, which was objectively harmful to judicial justice. The court can directly find that the pre-judgment effect of the judgment is different from the facts stated in the judicial notice or the official document, nor can it be explained simply by the principle of good faith in litigation. Essentially, it is "non-controversial". In the civil law system, the adjudicative effect of res judicata and the exclusion effect of disputes in Anglo-American law system are all about the binding force due to the judgment of the disputed facts by the former litigation judge. Although they have different emphases on the theoretical expression, they are highly consistent in the system. It embodies the inherent law of judicature and is the legal basis of the validity of pre-determination. By learning from each other, we can construct the uniform rules for the generation of pre-determination effect and the exemption from proof of pre-determined facts.
【作者单位】：南京大学法学院;
【分类号】：DF72

【相似文献】