论民事诉讼中当事人之主观心理状态的查明——以程序性争议的处理为分析对象  

The Proof of the Subjective State of Mind of the Parties in Civil Proceedings

作　　者：胡思博[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学诉讼法学研究院,北京100088

出　　处：《法学论坛》2017年第5期152-160,共9页Legal Forum

基　　金：中国政法大学<刑民交叉案件程序问题研究>青年教师学术创新团队项目资助;系司法部国家法治与法学理论研究项目中青年课题<对民事违法审判行为的检察监督>(15SFB3020)阶段性研究成果

摘　　要：当事人实施某项诉讼行为时的主观心理状态是民事诉讼中解决部分程序性争议的关键和难点之所在。鉴于当事人主观心理状态的内在性、复杂性和难以直接判断性,常规的证明方法已难以在此类纠纷的解决过程中发挥有效作用,对当事人在民事诉讼中主观心理状态的查明具有区别于对一般案件事实查明的特殊性,为此创设符合其产生原因和表现规律的新型证明方法是有效处理该类纠纷的方案之所在。在当事人主张自己的主观意思表示受到法院审判行为的不正当干预时,其应首先对审判行为不正当进行顺向疏明,然后再由法院对审判行为的正当性进行逆向证明。在司法机关依职权查明当事人之间是否存在恶意串通时,其应在一定的证明标准之下,根据相关行为的间接证据对当事人的主观心理状态进行推定。It is the key and difficult point to solve some procedural disputes in the civil procedure that the subjective psychological state of the parties in the implementation of a lawsuit. In view of the inherent and complex nature of the subjective state of the parties, it is difficult to judge directly, and the conventional methods are difficult to play an effective role in the settlement of such disputes. The identification of the subjective state of mind in the civil procedure is different from that of the common cases. In or- der to identify the subjective state of mind of the parties in the civil procedure, it is a new proof method needs to be found which is consistent with its causes and performance rules. If the parties claim the subjective meaning is improperly intervened by the court of trial act, it should be the first to carry forward judicial acts of unfair clearing, and then the court proves the legitimacy of the trial. When judicial authorities are investigating whether there is malicious collusion between the parties, they should infer the subjective state of mind from the indirect evidence of the relevant behaviors under a certain standard of proof.

关 键 词：民事程序性争议 主观心理状态 证明方法 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]