论仅有转账凭证之借贷事实的证明责任分配——对《民间借贷规定》第17条之检讨
发布时间：2018-10-16 13:23
【摘要】：原告仅以金融机构的转账凭证为据提起民间借贷诉讼,被告以转账系偿还双方之前借款或其他债务为由否认借贷关系的存在,这是司法实践中一类颇为常见却很难处理的案件,其主要待证事实往往最终仍处于真伪不明状态。针对该类案件的证明责任分配问题,各地法院曾经存在四种不同的处理意见,最高人民法院于2015年8月6日公布的《民间借贷规定》第17条则对此作出了专门规定。但是,该条款对证明责任分配规则之设计有违证明责任分配的一般原理,不当降低了借贷事实的证明标准,混淆了附理由的否认和抗辩以及本证与反证的关系,从而造成了证明责任分配的不当,故应当对该条款予以修正。
[Abstract]:The plaintiff only filed a private loan suit on the basis of the transfer certificate of a financial institution. The defendant denied the existence of the loan relationship on the grounds that the transfer was to repay the two parties' previous loans or other debts. This is a very common but difficult case in judicial practice. The main facts to be proved are often still in the state of truth and falsehood. In view of the distribution of burden of proof in this kind of cases, there were four different opinions in local courts, which were specifically stipulated in Article 17 of the provisions on Folk Lending published by the Supreme people's Court on August 6, 2015. However, the clause has violated the general principle of burden of proof distribution, improperly lowered the standard of proof, confused the denial and defense with reasons and the relationship between this certificate and counterproof. As a result of the improper distribution of the burden of proof, the clause should be amended.
【作者单位】： 武汉大学法学院;
【基金】：国家2011计划司法文明协同创新中心(教技函[2013]26号)研究成果
【分类号】：D925.13;D922.282
[Abstract]:The plaintiff only filed a private loan suit on the basis of the transfer certificate of a financial institution. The defendant denied the existence of the loan relationship on the grounds that the transfer was to repay the two parties' previous loans or other debts. This is a very common but difficult case in judicial practice. The main facts to be proved are often still in the state of truth and falsehood. In view of the distribution of burden of proof in this kind of cases, there were four different opinions in local courts, which were specifically stipulated in Article 17 of the provisions on Folk Lending published by the Supreme people's Court on August 6, 2015. However, the clause has violated the general principle of burden of proof distribution, improperly lowered the standard of proof, confused the denial and defense with reasons and the relationship between this certificate and counterproof. As a result of the improper distribution of the burden of proof, the clause should be amended.
【作者单位】： 武汉大学法学院;
【基金】：国家2011计划司法文明协同创新中心(教技函[2013]26号)研究成果
【分类号】：D925.13;D922.282
【相似文献】
中国期刊全文数据库 前10条
1 蒲长春;林子;;民间借贷应注意“四要”[J];四川监察;2001年07期
2 张红;民间借贷如何防赖账[J];农村天地;2002年06期
3 栾香录;刘钟钦;;民间借贷的积极作用与缺陷[J];资料通讯;2004年Z1期
4 ;民间借贷应当注意的问题[J];中国工会财会;2005年08期
5 陈蓉;;我国民间借贷研究文献综述与评论[J];经济法论坛;2006年00期
6 罗来军;;浅议民间借贷的产生及其存在的原因[J];世纪桥;2007年10期
7 张立先;;我国民间借贷法律风险问题研究[J];理论学习;2009年02期
8 吴国培;翁剑华;耿直;;民间借贷法律问题探析[J];福建金融;2009年02期
9 张新惠;李杰辉;;浅谈民间借贷[J];法制与社会;2009年28期
10 吕志强;;浙江民间借贷新动向[J];w，
本文编号：2274495
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2274495.html
