证据保全程序参照适用保全程序质疑——《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第81条第3款检讨

发布时间：2018-09-18 13:21

【摘要】：2012年修订的《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第81条第3款关于证据保全程序参照适用保全程序的规定乃错误的立法。因为从方法论上讲,只有性质上相类似的制度或程序才有参照适用的可能,而证据保全程序与保全程序虽均含有保全之名,在性质上却是迥然不同的两类诉讼程序。证据保全乃预先进行的证据调查程序,与正式的证据调查程序具有同一效力;保全程序乃暂时地、假定地确定私权的程序,目的在于保障将来的强制执行中顺利实现当事人的私权。《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第81条第3款是我国立法者长期存在的关于证据保全性质之错误认识在立法上最为集中也是最为直接的反映。为充分实现证据保全制度的机能,应立足于证据保全本质上乃预先进行的证据调查程序而作相应的制度安排。
[Abstract]:Article 81, paragraph 3, of the Civil procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, amended in 2012, is wrong legislation to refer to the application of preservation procedure to evidence preservation procedures. Because in methodology, only the similar system or procedure has the possibility of reference and application, and the evidence preservation procedure and the preservation procedure both contain the name of preservation, but they are two different kinds of litigation procedure in nature. The preservation of evidence is a procedure for the investigation of evidence carried out in advance and has the same effect as a formal procedure for the investigation of evidence; the procedure for preserving evidence is a procedure for determining private rights temporarily and hypothetically, The purpose is to ensure the smooth realization of the private rights of the parties in the future enforcement. Article 81, paragraph 3, of the Civil procedure Law of the people's Republic of China is a long-standing misconception of the nature of evidence preservation by Chinese legislators. The most concentrated and direct reflection in law. In order to fully realize the function of evidence preservation system, the corresponding institutional arrangement should be made based on the evidence preservation procedure which is in essence a prior investigation procedure.
【作者单位】：武汉大学法学院;
【分类号】：D925.1

【共引文献】