论我国民事诉讼保证书制度

发布时间：2018-03-11 01:18

本文选题：保证书制度　切入点：诚实原则　出处：《安徽大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：民事诉讼保证书制度在我国的设立,推动了我国诚信诉讼的新发展。保证书制度所规定的诚信作证和失信惩戒要求,能有效的提高言词证据的真实性,促进案件的顺利解决。基于目前立法和司法现状中呈现的问题,健全保证书制度需有条件的借鉴域外宣誓制度和具结制度的有效经验,同时需发挥制度的内在修复与外在配合的双重作用,以便更好实现保证书制度在我国民事诉讼中的价值。分析我国民事诉讼保证书制度,第一要义就是研究制度的价值。保证书制度最大的价值就是贯彻了诚信原则,是诚信原则在民事诉讼程序中制度化的产物,起到了预防不诚信作证的效果。同时,保证书制度完善了言词证据制度,通过诚实引导、虚假惩戒的约束和科学合理规范,弥补了言词证据中的主观性和主体的特殊性所带来的证明效力弱的缺陷。再就是,保证书制度有助于实现司法公正,通过保证书如实陈述的要求能够有效的发现案件事实,维护当事人合法利益,实现了程序公正和实体公正的统一。最后,保证书制度有助于提高司法效率,通过要求当事人和证人诚信诉讼,避免恶意诉讼、虚假诉讼所带来的资源浪费,更高效的追求事实真相。立法上,关于保证书制度只在2015年《民事诉讼法司法解释》中作出了规定,其中第一百一十条规定了当事人签署保证书的相关内容;第一百一十九条和第一百二十条规定了证人签署保证书的相关内容。但是对于保证书的签署主体、签署时间、文本内容、拒签的法律以及伪证处罚等均规定的不够全面。司法上,借鉴宣誓制度有效经验,各地法院纷纷开始探索实践保证书制度。但是由于立法的不规范和地域的差异,导致保证书制度的实行存在差别,主要集中于保证书的内容和保证书的签署程序的不同,因此造成了司法混乱的局面。基于立法现状和司法现状不难发现保证书制度在我国存在诸多问题。具体而言,保证书签署的主体不明确、签署时间不规范、保证书格式内容不统一、拒签法律后果不合理以及伪证责任不健全等问题。究其原因,主要是因为司法解释创设保证书制度不科学、证人出庭作证制度不完善、证人拒证权的缺乏和妨害民事诉讼强制措施的空白等原因。为了解决我国民事诉讼保证书制度的适用问题,需要借鉴域外的宣誓制度和具结制度有效经验的基础上,对我国民事诉讼保证书制度进行完善。首先需要将保证书制度的司法解释法律化,应以民事诉讼法的形式将这一重要制度加以确立;再就是对保证书具体制度内容的完善,针对问题一一完善,具体包括明确适用主体、规范签署时间、统一格式内容、具体拒签后果以及健全伪证责任。最后就是保证书相关配套制度的建构与完善,具体包括建立强制证人出庭作证制度、赋予证人拒证权和完善妨害民事诉讼强制措施等。
[Abstract]:The establishment of the guarantee system in civil action in our country has promoted the new development of the good faith litigation in our country. The requirement of good faith testimony and dishonest punishment stipulated by the guarantee system can effectively improve the authenticity of the verbal evidence. To promote the smooth resolution of cases. Based on the problems presented in the current legislative and judicial situation, the sound guarantee system needs to draw on the effective experience of the extraterritorial oaths system and the binding system, At the same time, it is necessary to play the dual role of internal repair and external cooperation of the system in order to better realize the value of the guarantee system in the civil litigation of our country. The first important point is to study the value of the system. The greatest value of the guarantee system is the implementation of the principle of good faith, the product of the institutionalization of the principle of good faith in civil proceedings, and the effect of preventing dishonesty from testifying. The guarantee system has perfected the system of verbal evidence. Through honest guidance, the constraint of false punishment and the scientific and reasonable standard, it makes up for the defects of the subjectivity in the verbal evidence and the particularity of the subject. The guarantee system is helpful to the realization of judicial justice, and can effectively discover the facts of the case, safeguard the legitimate interests of the parties, and realize the unification of procedural justice and substantive justice through the requirement of truthful statement of the bond. The guarantee system helps to improve judicial efficiency by requiring parties and witnesses to act in good faith, to avoid the waste of resources brought by malicious litigation and false litigation, and to pursue the truth more efficiently. The guarantee system is only stipulated in the Judicial interpretation of the Civil procedure Law in 2015, in which 110th articles stipulate the relevant contents of the guarantee signed by the parties; Articles 119th and 120th stipulate the relevant contents of the certificate of guarantee signed by the witness. However, for the subject, time and content of the text of the bond, The law of refusing to sign and the punishment of perjury are not comprehensive enough. In judicature, drawing on the effective experience of the oath system, the courts around the country have begun to explore the practice of the guarantee system one after another. However, due to the non-standard legislation and regional differences, This leads to differences in the implementation of the guarantee system, which mainly focuses on the difference in the content of the guarantee and the signing procedure of the guarantee, Based on the current situation of legislation and judicial situation, it is not difficult to find that there are many problems in the guarantee system in our country. In particular, the subject of the bond signature is not clear, and the time of signing is not standardized. The contents of guarantee form are not uniform, the legal consequence of refusing to sign is unreasonable and the liability of perjury is not perfect. The main reasons are that the system of guarantee is not scientific in judicial interpretation, and the system of witness appearing in court is not perfect. In order to solve the problem of the application of guarantee system in civil litigation in China, it is necessary to draw lessons from the effective experience of the oaths system and the binding system in foreign countries. First of all, it is necessary to legalize the judicial interpretation of the guarantee system, which should be established in the form of civil procedure law. Perfect one by one in view of the problems, including defining the applicable subject, standardizing the signing time, unifying the content of the format, the specific consequences of refusing to sign and perfecting the responsibility of perjury. Finally, the construction and perfection of the supporting system related to the guarantee. It includes establishing the system of compulsory witness to testify in court, endowing witness's right of refusing testimony and perfecting compulsory measures of obstruction of civil action, etc.
【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】