事实推定在民事审判中的适用研究
|
摘要
事实推定是法官在诉讼过程中据情在自由心证范围内根据有关证据和经验法则对有关待证事实所作出的一种假定或推论。事实推定客观存在,它在民事诉讼中的作用是一般证据证明所不能替代的,但事实推定的适用却一直是法学界与司法实务工作者争议的焦点。法学界反对事实推定主要是认为其主观性强、稳定性差、且存在为法官堂而皇之地滥用自由裁量权提供合理依据之嫌。由于我国现行的民事诉讼法未有关于事实推定的内容,虽然最高人民法院1992年关于民事诉讼法的适用意见与2002年的证据规定对事实推定均有所涉及,但这些规定不仅未厘清事实推定与法律推定的关系,而且内容单薄,没有对事实推定的适用条件、法律效果、适用规则等涉及司法实践操作的重要问题作出明确规定。这种立法现状的缺陷与我国关于事实推定理论研究的薄弱导致司法实务中绝大多数法官对事实推定的适用持排斥、质疑、畏缩的态度,即便符合适用条件也因法律上没有明确规定而不敢大胆适用。然而从法官居中裁判的角度出发,在诉讼遭遇证明手段用尽、审理期限短暂、当事人权益又亟待保护的情形下,与其无视已经查实或确定的基础事实,无视当事人关于待证事实的主张,不如正视事实推定在缓解证明困难、提高诉讼效率、降低诉讼成本、维护社会公平正义等方面的作用,进而考虑从适用事实推定的原则设置、程序规范、配套制度建设等方面来严格事实推定的适用,克服法官主观因素的影响,降低适用风险,发挥事实推定在我国民事审判中的应有功能。
Fact presumption is the presume or deduce which is applied by the Judge in the range of the freedom heart prove according to the case, some evidence or thumb rule during the trial .Fact presumption objectively existenced, whose function can not substituted by the common evidence in civil action, however, the application of the face presumption is the disputable focus between circle of the law and the operator of the justice practice all the time. The main reason for the opposition of the fact presumption in the circle of the law is that they take it highly subjectivity, bad stability, what's more, it may suspiciously give the Judge opportunity of abusing freedom decision power. The current Civil Action Law has no content of fact presumption, although it has been somewhat stipulated in the application opinion of civil action law in 1992 and evidence stipulation in 2002 by the supreme court of people, these stipulations could not distinguish the relationship of the fact presumption and the law presumption, but also lack of content, because they don't give any definite stipulation of important problems of the justice practice operation, such as the application condition, the law effect ,the application rule of the fact presumption. The defect of the current legislation and the weak theory research of the fact presumption result in most judges repulsing, oppugning, recoiling the application of the fact presumption during the trial practice. Even if it accords with the application condition, for there is no definite stipulation in law, they are not bold to apply the fact presumption.
Whereas, as a Judge, when the lawsuit encounters the situation of no proved means, brevity of trial, desiderately protection of party of rights and interests. Regardless of the proved basic truth and the proposition from the party, it would be better to envisage the function of the fact presumption in alleviating the prove difficulty, enhancing the efficiency of lawsuit, reducing the cost of lawsuit, maintaining the society of equity and justice.
Furthermore, in order to set the application condition strict, reduce the risk of application; we should take into account the construction of the rule setting of the fact presumption application, the procedure criterion, correlation system. We can exert the fact presumption its own function in our civil trial practice.
Fact presumption is the presume or deduce which is applied by the Judge in the range of the freedom heart prove according to the case, some evidence or thumb rule during the trial .Fact presumption objectively existenced, whose function can not substituted by the common evidence in civil action, however, the application of the face presumption is the disputable focus between circle of the law and the operator of the justice practice all the time. The main reason for the opposition of the fact presumption in the circle of the law is that they take it highly subjectivity, bad stability, what's more, it may suspiciously give the Judge opportunity of abusing freedom decision power. The current Civil Action Law has no content of fact presumption, although it has been somewhat stipulated in the application opinion of civil action law in 1992 and evidence stipulation in 2002 by the supreme court of people, these stipulations could not distinguish the relationship of the fact presumption and the law presumption, but also lack of content, because they don't give any definite stipulation of important problems of the justice practice operation, such as the application condition, the law effect ,the application rule of the fact presumption. The defect of the current legislation and the weak theory research of the fact presumption result in most judges repulsing, oppugning, recoiling the application of the fact presumption during the trial practice. Even if it accords with the application condition, for there is no definite stipulation in law, they are not bold to apply the fact presumption.
Whereas, as a Judge, when the lawsuit encounters the situation of no proved means, brevity of trial, desiderately protection of party of rights and interests. Regardless of the proved basic truth and the proposition from the party, it would be better to envisage the function of the fact presumption in alleviating the prove difficulty, enhancing the efficiency of lawsuit, reducing the cost of lawsuit, maintaining the society of equity and justice.
Furthermore, in order to set the application condition strict, reduce the risk of application; we should take into account the construction of the rule setting of the fact presumption application, the procedure criterion, correlation system. We can exert the fact presumption its own function in our civil trial practice.
引文
[1][美]庞德.通过法律的社会控制[M].北京:商务印书馆,1984.29.
[2]漳州市龙文区人民法院.(2007)文民初字第201号民事判决书[Z].
[1]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,主编.现代汉语词典[Z].北京:商务印书馆,2002.1280.
[2]毕玉谦.民事证明责任研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.405.
[3]江伟,主编.证据法学[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.124.
[1]毕玉谦.民事证明责任研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.406.
[1]李富成.刑事推定研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.12.
[2]毕玉谦.民事证明责任研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.418.
[3]同上,第420页.
[4]人工授精子女抚养纠纷案[J].最高人民法院公报,1997,(1):26.
[5]漳州市龙文区人民法院.(2007)文民初字第201号民事判决书[Z].
[1]李富成.刑事推定研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.16.
[1]江伟,主编.证据法学[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.138.
[2]李富成.刑事推定研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.23.
[1]李富成.刑事推定研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.113-114.
[1]黄松有.民事诉讼证据司法解释的理解与适用[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.322.
[1]毕玉谦,主编.民事证据原理与实务研究[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2003.568.
[2]刘振铎,主编.现代汉语词海[Z].北京:北方妇女儿童出版社,2002.237.
[3]同上,第480页.
[4][美]霍姆斯.普通法[M].冉昊,姚中秋译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006.1.
[1]陈波.论证是哲学活动的本性[A].赵汀阳,主编.论证[C].辽宁:辽海出版社,1999.76.
[1]刘德章,主编.公务员公共管理核心课程读本[M].北京:国家行政学院出版社,2006-267.
[1]罗蔺.民事裁判中的事实认定问题研究(博士学位论文)[D].2001.
[2]彭漪涟,马钦荣,主编.逻辑学大辞典[Z].上海:辞书出版社,2004.335.
[1][德]莱奥·罗森贝克.证明责任论-以德国民法典和民事诉讼法典为基础撰写[M].庄敬华译,北京:中国法制出版社,2002.64.
[2]毕玉谦.民事证明责任研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.107.
[3]同上,第144页.
[1]赵信会.民事推定及其适用机制研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.130.
[2][法]孟德斯鸠.论法的精神(下)[M].张雁深译,北京:商务印书馆,1994.182.
[1]李国光,主编.最高人民法院〈关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定〉的理解与适用[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2002.406.
[1]毕玉谦.民事证据法及其程序功能[M].北京:法律出版社,1997.223.
[1][德]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥译,北京:商务印书馆,2003.186.
[2]漳州市龙文区人民法院.(2007)文民初字第201号民事判决书[Z].
[1]陈兴良.法官的护法使命[N].人民法院报,2001-03-29.
[1][日]谷口平安.程序的正义与诉讼(增补本)[M].王亚新,刘荣军译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.139.
[1]毕玉谦.民事证明责任研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[2]常怡,王建华,主编.民事证据判例与理论分析[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2007.
[3]李富成.刑事推定研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.
[4]李国光,主编.最高人民法院〈关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定〉的理解与适用[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[5]刘善春,毕玉谦,郑旭,主编.诉讼证据规则研究[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2000.
[6]赵信会.民事推定及其适用机制研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[1]东芳.浅析民事诉讼中的事实推定[J].沈阳农业大学学报(社会科学版),2005(4).
[2]高原.事实推定在审判实务中的价值[J].司法实践,2006.
[3]李岚红.关于民事推定的立法构想[J].大学时代下半月,2006.
[4]李瑞霞.民事推定研究(硕士学位论文)[D].北京:中国政法大学,2004.
[5]李文庆.我国民事诉讼推定制度的重构[J].广西政法管理干部学院学报,2003,18(3).
[6]廖荣兴.论民事诉讼中的推定(硕士学位论文)[D].四川:西南政法大学,2005.
[7]齐树洁,王晖晖.证据法中的推定问题研究[J].河南公安高等专科学校学报,2002(2).
[8]秦波.逻辑视野下的推定理论分析(硕士学位论文)[D].河南:河南大学,2006.
[9]汤茂定,王健.论事实推定的逻辑归属与适用原则[J].甘肃行政学院学报,2004(52).
[10]陶丽丽.事实推定制度研究(硕士学位论文)[D].江苏:南京师范大学,2006.
[11]王梦飞.论民事诉讼中的事实推定[J].江淮论坛,2005(2).
[12]谢静.司法裁判中法律事实的认定(硕士学位论文)[D].北京:中国政法大学,2003.
[13]俞惠斌.事实推定的逻辑结构与运用方法[J].北京工业大学学报,2006,6(4).
[14]岳涛,王韧.民事诉讼中事实推定的评判[J].法制论坛,2007(29).
[15]张芳芳.论民事证据制度中的事实推定[J].学术研究,2003(10).
[2]漳州市龙文区人民法院.(2007)文民初字第201号民事判决书[Z].
[1]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,主编.现代汉语词典[Z].北京:商务印书馆,2002.1280.
[2]毕玉谦.民事证明责任研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.405.
[3]江伟,主编.证据法学[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.124.
[1]毕玉谦.民事证明责任研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.406.
[1]李富成.刑事推定研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.12.
[2]毕玉谦.民事证明责任研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.418.
[3]同上,第420页.
[4]人工授精子女抚养纠纷案[J].最高人民法院公报,1997,(1):26.
[5]漳州市龙文区人民法院.(2007)文民初字第201号民事判决书[Z].
[1]李富成.刑事推定研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.16.
[1]江伟,主编.证据法学[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.138.
[2]李富成.刑事推定研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.23.
[1]李富成.刑事推定研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.113-114.
[1]黄松有.民事诉讼证据司法解释的理解与适用[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.322.
[1]毕玉谦,主编.民事证据原理与实务研究[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2003.568.
[2]刘振铎,主编.现代汉语词海[Z].北京:北方妇女儿童出版社,2002.237.
[3]同上,第480页.
[4][美]霍姆斯.普通法[M].冉昊,姚中秋译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006.1.
[1]陈波.论证是哲学活动的本性[A].赵汀阳,主编.论证[C].辽宁:辽海出版社,1999.76.
[1]刘德章,主编.公务员公共管理核心课程读本[M].北京:国家行政学院出版社,2006-267.
[1]罗蔺.民事裁判中的事实认定问题研究(博士学位论文)[D].2001.
[2]彭漪涟,马钦荣,主编.逻辑学大辞典[Z].上海:辞书出版社,2004.335.
[1][德]莱奥·罗森贝克.证明责任论-以德国民法典和民事诉讼法典为基础撰写[M].庄敬华译,北京:中国法制出版社,2002.64.
[2]毕玉谦.民事证明责任研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.107.
[3]同上,第144页.
[1]赵信会.民事推定及其适用机制研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.130.
[2][法]孟德斯鸠.论法的精神(下)[M].张雁深译,北京:商务印书馆,1994.182.
[1]李国光,主编.最高人民法院〈关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定〉的理解与适用[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2002.406.
[1]毕玉谦.民事证据法及其程序功能[M].北京:法律出版社,1997.223.
[1][德]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥译,北京:商务印书馆,2003.186.
[2]漳州市龙文区人民法院.(2007)文民初字第201号民事判决书[Z].
[1]陈兴良.法官的护法使命[N].人民法院报,2001-03-29.
[1][日]谷口平安.程序的正义与诉讼(增补本)[M].王亚新,刘荣军译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.139.
[1]毕玉谦.民事证明责任研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[2]常怡,王建华,主编.民事证据判例与理论分析[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2007.
[3]李富成.刑事推定研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.
[4]李国光,主编.最高人民法院〈关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定〉的理解与适用[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[5]刘善春,毕玉谦,郑旭,主编.诉讼证据规则研究[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2000.
[6]赵信会.民事推定及其适用机制研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[1]东芳.浅析民事诉讼中的事实推定[J].沈阳农业大学学报(社会科学版),2005(4).
[2]高原.事实推定在审判实务中的价值[J].司法实践,2006.
[3]李岚红.关于民事推定的立法构想[J].大学时代下半月,2006.
[4]李瑞霞.民事推定研究(硕士学位论文)[D].北京:中国政法大学,2004.
[5]李文庆.我国民事诉讼推定制度的重构[J].广西政法管理干部学院学报,2003,18(3).
[6]廖荣兴.论民事诉讼中的推定(硕士学位论文)[D].四川:西南政法大学,2005.
[7]齐树洁,王晖晖.证据法中的推定问题研究[J].河南公安高等专科学校学报,2002(2).
[8]秦波.逻辑视野下的推定理论分析(硕士学位论文)[D].河南:河南大学,2006.
[9]汤茂定,王健.论事实推定的逻辑归属与适用原则[J].甘肃行政学院学报,2004(52).
[10]陶丽丽.事实推定制度研究(硕士学位论文)[D].江苏:南京师范大学,2006.
[11]王梦飞.论民事诉讼中的事实推定[J].江淮论坛,2005(2).
[12]谢静.司法裁判中法律事实的认定(硕士学位论文)[D].北京:中国政法大学,2003.
[13]俞惠斌.事实推定的逻辑结构与运用方法[J].北京工业大学学报,2006,6(4).
[14]岳涛,王韧.民事诉讼中事实推定的评判[J].法制论坛,2007(29).
[15]张芳芳.论民事证据制度中的事实推定[J].学术研究,2003(10).