一起存单权利纠纷案的证明责任分析
发布时间：2018-08-14 19:19
【摘要】：民事证明责任在民事法律以及民事诉讼活动中处于核心地位，而证明责任的分配问题则是核心中的核心。长久以来各国的法学家以及学者们都对这个问题孜孜以求，虽然至今仍然没有一种理论与学说能够完美的对证明责任进行分配，但是证明责任因为其特殊的功能作用，在审判实践中具有重要意义。“证明责任之所在，败诉之所在”的法谚是其重要性的集中体现。根据我国民事诉讼法的有关规定，我国法律中的证明责任被划分为两层含义，行为意义上的证明责任，即谁提出主张谁就必须提供证据对其主张加以证明；结果意义上的证明责任，即在案件事实处于真伪不明状态时举证不利一方当事人承担败诉后果。所以，当事人在诉讼中必须承担对于自己主张的证明责任，并且在事实真伪不明时举证不利一方当事人需要承担败诉后果。据此，案件事实的认定是其中重要环节，法官在审判实践中，运用经验法则和逻辑判断，对相关证据分析归纳，作出评价，最后形成关于案件事实的具体确信。当这种具体的确信达到最低心证限度，即法定证明标准时，才能够判断案件事实究竟为真还是为假。如果一旦由于证据不足导致法官内心确信用尽也无法认定案件事实，，即案件事实处于真伪不明状态时，那么证明责任相关规范能够帮助法官明确裁判何方当事人败诉。 本文通过对一起存单权利纠纷案的分析，明确了两级法院在对本案处理过程中存在的问题，并且分析了本案由于证据不足导致案件真相无法查清，应该适用证明责任相关规范对其进行解决。在证明责任规则的适用中，分析了本案证明责任的分配问题，并最终形成了笔者对该案件的结论，希望能够对此类案件的解决提供有益的思考。 本文共分四部分，第一部分主要介绍了相关案情和法院的判决，并且提出了案件的争议焦点，明确了争议问题。第二部分通过对两级法院事实认定部分的分析，提出异议并且形成对案件事实部分的认定，确认本案事实处于真伪不明的状态。第三部分明确本案符合适用证明责任规范的条件，并且对本案的证明责任加以分析。第四部分是笔者通过以上分析形成对于本案的争议焦点以及相关问题的最终结论。
[Abstract]:Civil burden of proof is the core of civil law and civil litigation, and the distribution of burden of proof is the core of the core. For a long time jurists and scholars all over the world have been striving for this issue. Although there is still no theory and doctrine that can perfectly distribute the burden of proof, but the burden of proof is due to its special function. It is of great significance in trial practice. The legal saying "the burden of proof lies, the failure" is a central embodiment of its importance. According to the relevant provisions of our civil procedure law, the burden of proof in our country's law is divided into two meanings, that is, the burden of proof in the meaning of behavior, that is, the person who claims must provide evidence to prove his claim; The burden of proof in the sense of result is that when the facts of the case are in the state of truth or not, the unfavorable party bears the consequences of losing the case. Therefore, the litigant must bear the burden of proof for his claim in the lawsuit, and one party must bear the consequences of losing the lawsuit when the facts are not true or false. Therefore, the determination of the facts of the case is one of the important links. In the trial practice, the judge applies the rule of experience and logic judgment, analyzes and concludes the relevant evidence, makes an evaluation, and finally forms the concrete conviction about the facts of the case. When this concrete conviction reaches the minimum evidentiary limit, that is, the legal standard of proof, it is possible to judge whether the facts of the case are true or false. If the judge is convinced that the facts of the case are exhausted because of the lack of evidence, that is, the facts of the case are in a state of uncertainty, then the relevant norms of burden of proof can help the judge to make clear which party has lost the case. By analyzing a dispute over certificate of deposit rights, this paper clarifies the problems existing in the process of handling this case by the two levels of court, and analyses the fact that the case cannot be found out because of insufficient evidence. It should be resolved by applying the relevant norms of the burden of proof. In the application of the rules of burden of proof, this paper analyzes the distribution of the burden of proof in this case, and finally forms the author's conclusion on the case, hoping to provide useful thinking for the solution of this kind of case. This paper is divided into four parts. The first part mainly introduces the relevant cases and court decisions, and puts forward the dispute focus of the case, and clarifies the controversial issues. The second part through the analysis of the two levels of the court facts, put forward objections and form the case of the facts part of the determination, confirm that the facts of the case is in a state of uncertainty. The third part clarifies that this case conforms to the condition of applying the criterion of burden of proof, and analyzes the burden of proof in this case. The fourth part is the author through the above analysis to form the focus of the case and related issues of the final conclusion.
【学位授予单位】：沈阳师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1
本文编号：2183867
[Abstract]:Civil burden of proof is the core of civil law and civil litigation, and the distribution of burden of proof is the core of the core. For a long time jurists and scholars all over the world have been striving for this issue. Although there is still no theory and doctrine that can perfectly distribute the burden of proof, but the burden of proof is due to its special function. It is of great significance in trial practice. The legal saying "the burden of proof lies, the failure" is a central embodiment of its importance. According to the relevant provisions of our civil procedure law, the burden of proof in our country's law is divided into two meanings, that is, the burden of proof in the meaning of behavior, that is, the person who claims must provide evidence to prove his claim; The burden of proof in the sense of result is that when the facts of the case are in the state of truth or not, the unfavorable party bears the consequences of losing the case. Therefore, the litigant must bear the burden of proof for his claim in the lawsuit, and one party must bear the consequences of losing the lawsuit when the facts are not true or false. Therefore, the determination of the facts of the case is one of the important links. In the trial practice, the judge applies the rule of experience and logic judgment, analyzes and concludes the relevant evidence, makes an evaluation, and finally forms the concrete conviction about the facts of the case. When this concrete conviction reaches the minimum evidentiary limit, that is, the legal standard of proof, it is possible to judge whether the facts of the case are true or false. If the judge is convinced that the facts of the case are exhausted because of the lack of evidence, that is, the facts of the case are in a state of uncertainty, then the relevant norms of burden of proof can help the judge to make clear which party has lost the case. By analyzing a dispute over certificate of deposit rights, this paper clarifies the problems existing in the process of handling this case by the two levels of court, and analyses the fact that the case cannot be found out because of insufficient evidence. It should be resolved by applying the relevant norms of the burden of proof. In the application of the rules of burden of proof, this paper analyzes the distribution of the burden of proof in this case, and finally forms the author's conclusion on the case, hoping to provide useful thinking for the solution of this kind of case. This paper is divided into four parts. The first part mainly introduces the relevant cases and court decisions, and puts forward the dispute focus of the case, and clarifies the controversial issues. The second part through the analysis of the two levels of the court facts, put forward objections and form the case of the facts part of the determination, confirm that the facts of the case is in a state of uncertainty. The third part clarifies that this case conforms to the condition of applying the criterion of burden of proof, and analyzes the burden of proof in this case. The fourth part is the author through the above analysis to form the focus of the case and related issues of the final conclusion.
【学位授予单位】：沈阳师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前5条
1 肖建华,王德新;证明责任判决的裁判方法论意义——兼评传统证明责任观之谬误[J];北京科技大学学报(社会科学版);2005年02期
2 霍海红;;论证明责任机制的限度[J];当代法学;2008年03期
3 李浩;;民事诉讼程序权利的保障:问题与对策[J];法商研究;2007年03期
4 刘春梅;论自由心证与法定证据之关系[J];湖湘论坛;2004年05期
5 李浩;;举证时限制度的困境与出路——追问证据失权的正义性[J];中国法学;2005年03期
本文编号：2183867
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2183867.html
