论我国民事司法实践中事实真伪不明案件的处理方式

发布时间：2018-07-09 17:07

本文选题：要件事实 + 真伪不明　；参考：《河南大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：对于如何处理事实真伪不明案件,论者发现理论界研究主要在理论介绍和理论评析方面,少数学者只是稍加个案的关注,实务界也并没有全面关注该问题。基于此种原因论者梳理事实真伪不明相关理论,试以中国裁判文书网上的案例为依据,分析我国民事司法实践如何处理事实真伪不明案件,探讨相关理论在我国司法实践中的运用状况,并为司法实践提出一些合理化建议。正文分为四部分,主要内容如下:第一部分:事实真伪不明相关理论概况。事实真伪不明是在诉讼过程中,对于某一要件事实或者关键要件事实,双方当事人在程序上穷尽必要的攻击和防御手段,在诉讼终结前,法官仍然不能按照证明标准要求,达到内心确信该要件事实是否为真或者是否为伪,从而在法官心证过程中形成的特殊心理状态。如何处理事实真伪不明案件?理论界和实务界主张有所不同,理论界支持在事实真伪不明的情况下,最佳处理方式是适用客观证明责任规则;而实务界的态度是审慎的,是在各种方式都无法处理的情况下适用客观证明责任规则并要求法官有很大的自由裁量权,并且调解在一定程度受到青睐。第二部分:事实真伪不明案件处理方式的类型。通过梳理发现运用调解的方式、按照心证比例判决、降低证明责任标准、把真伪不明认定为事实不存在、运用客观证明责任规则的方式处理要件事实真伪不明都是存在的。按照调解方式并未解决争议问题,最后还是以判决的方式解决争议纠纷。按照心证比例、降低证明标准的方式处理事实真伪不明案件所占比例很小,处理事实真伪不明案件运用最多的方式是把要件事实真伪不明认定为不存在和运用客观证明责任规则方式处理。第三部分:事实真伪不明案件处理方式评析。处理真伪不明的案件运用调解方式处理是失败的,但仍然使用的原因是随着司法政策的变化,调解撤诉率成为了评优评先进的机制,此外还有其他原因如效率、息诉、防止执行难问题等方面有积极的意义,以至于出现追求“零判决”的倾向。论者认为应当把握好“能调则调,当判则判”的原则。按照心证比例进行裁判与当事人进行诉讼的目的是不一致的,最重要的是按照此方式使得当事人几乎无法获得真正胜诉的判决,是以此类方法克服要件事实真伪不明是不可取得。对于有些案件中要件事实因无法获得证据使证明存在很大困难时,仍采取高度盖然性证明标准,对被侵权人来说是不公正的。所以降低证明标准,使法官能够克服一些案件中要件事实真伪不明,认定因果关系存在并判决侵权人赔偿是有道理的。但是为追求法的可预测性,无法普遍适用。当法院认定案件的事实真伪不明的情况下,法院的具体做法是未证明就认定为“伪”的方式处理,此方法也是司法实践中运用最多的处理方式。《证据规则》第二条第二款规定并不是只针对事实真伪不明时的法律适用,而是与法官心证过程中确认事实为“伪”的情况平等看待,由此可见当待证事实达到证明标准时,才能认定事实为“真”,未能达到证明标准就认定事实为“伪”,并使无法证明待证事实为“真”的一方当事人承担败诉后果。该方法恰好与最新《民事诉讼法》司法解释第一百零八条相契合。运用客观证明责任处理事实真伪不明案件时存在一些问题:对于何时认定真伪不明的界点不明确,进而出现运用错误;对于客观证明责任由何方承担,有时法院是不明确的;主观证明责任和客观证明责任在审判中却出现混淆;因证明标准不统一问题,出现了真伪不明的认定宽严标准不一,导致个案中事实真伪不明的认定差异很大。当然应当肯定一些法院恰当运用该规则处理真伪不明案件,这些法院主要集中在浙江的法院,原因是浙江高级人民法院出台相应规定。第四部分:司法实践中事实真伪不明案件处理的建议。在法官审判过程中,首先要把握好事实真伪不明出现的情况,对于部分案件而言法官可以通过证据调查解决真伪不明问题,而对于有些案件合理运用推定的方式也是可以解决真伪不明问题;这些都是法官裁判义务的回归。其次,确有必要减轻当事人证明责任时,法官要恰当运用手中的自由裁量权。具体而言就是按照心证比例方式和降低证明责任标准方式,以及合理运用《证据规则》第七条内容裁判;最后,在以上方式都无法克服事实真伪不明时,正确适用客观证明责任规则——最后一根救命稻草的方式处理。我国在适用客观证明责任规则时应当依据最新《民事诉讼法》司法解释第九十一条的规定进行分配。
[Abstract]:On how to deal with the facts and false cases, the theorists find that the theoretical research is mainly in the theoretical introduction and theoretical analysis. The few scholars only pay attention to the case, and the practical circles do not pay attention to the problem in an all-round way. Based on this reason, the author combs the theory of truth and authenticity, and tries to use the case of the Chinese referee's documents on the Internet. On the basis of the analysis of how our civil judicial practice deals with the fact and false cases, the application of relevant theories in our judicial practice is discussed, and some rationalization proposals are put forward for judicial practice. The text is divided into four parts, the main content is as follows: the first part: the fact of the true and false unidentified theory. In the process, both parties have exhausted the necessary means of attack and defense on a certain element of fact or key elements. Before the end of the lawsuit, the judge still can not meet the requirements of the standard of proof to achieve a special heart in the process of the judge's heart evidence. The theory circles and the practical circles have different opinions on how to deal with the facts of unidentified cases. The theoretical circle supports that the best way to deal with the truth and false is that the best way to deal with the facts is to apply the rules of objective proof, while the attitude of the practice is prudent and the objective rules of burden of proof can be applied under the circumstances that all kinds of ways can not be dealt with. And ask the judge to have a great discretion, and the mediation is favored in a certain degree. The second part: the type of handling the facts of unidentified cases. By combing the way of mediation, it is found that the standard of burden of proof is reduced according to the proportion of the heart and soul, and the truth and false are not identified as the fact, and the objective proof is used. In accordance with the way of mediation, the dispute dispute is not solved, and finally the dispute dispute is solved by the way of judgment. The third part: the process of handling the truth and false unidentified cases is a failure, but the reason for the still use is that with the change of the judicial policy, the rate of mediation withdrawal has become the evaluation and evaluation. In addition, the advanced mechanism, in addition to other reasons, such as efficiency, interest, and prevention of difficult problems, is so positive that there is a tendency to pursue "zero judgment". The most important thing is that it makes it impossible for the parties to obtain a true victory in this way. It is unavailable to overcome the authenticity of the facts by such methods. In some cases, when the facts are unable to obtain evidence to make it difficult to prove that there is a great difficulty, it still takes a high degree of probability to prove the standard and not to the infringed. Therefore, it is fair to reduce the standard of proof, so that the judge can overcome the fact that the facts are true and false in some cases, and it is reasonable to determine the existence of the causation and the indemnity of the infringer. But it can not be universally applicable for the predictability of the pursuit of law. When the facts of the case are found to be true and false, the concrete practice of the court is not proved. This method is also the most used method of processing in judicial practice. The rules of "rule of evidence >" the second provisions of the second paragraphs are not only applicable to the law when the facts are not true or false, but are treated equally with the fact that the facts are "false" in the process of the judge's heart card. When the standard of proof is proved, the facts can be identified as "true", and the fact that the facts are "false" fails to reach the standard of proof, and the party who can not prove the fact that the facts are "true" can bear the consequences of losing the lawsuit. This method coincides with the 108th articles of the latest "Civil Procedure Law > judicial interpretation". There are some problems in the case of unidentified authenticity: it is not clear about when to identify the true or false boundary, and then the use of mistakes; sometimes the court is not clear about the responsibility of the objective proof, and the subjective burden of proof and the objective proof responsibility appear in the trial. It is sure that some courts properly use the rules to deal with the true and false cases. These courts are mainly concentrated in the courts of Zhejiang, the reason is that the high people's court in Zhejiang should make a provision. The fourth part: the true and false of the judicial practice. In the process of judge's trial, it is necessary to grasp the truth and authenticity of the truth in the course of the judge's trial. For some cases, the judge can solve the problem of authenticity through evidence investigation, and for some cases, the rational use of presumption can also solve the problem of authenticity and uncertainty; all these are the judges' obligation to judge. Secondly, when it is necessary to reduce the party's burden of proof, the judge should apply the right of discretion properly. In particular, it is in accordance with the proportion of heart evidence and the way of reducing the standard of burden of proof, and the rational use of the rules of evidence to judge the seventh contents; finally, when the truth and false of the facts can not be overcome, it is correct. It is true that the rule of objective proof of responsibility, the last way to save the straw, should be dealt with in the case of the application of the rules of the objective proof of proof in accordance with the provisions of the ninety-first provisions of the latest "Civil Procedure Law > judicial interpretation".
【学位授予单位】：河南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】