违约行为的证明责任承担探讨——从法释[2013]28号第5条第1款切入  

Who Bears the Burden to Prove Breach of Contract——Taking Article 5(1) of Judicial Interpretation No.28 [2013] as an Example

作　　者：谌宏伟[1] CHEN Hongwei(Centre for Applied Legal Research, Gannan Normal University, Ganzhou 341000, China)

机构地区：[1]赣南师范大学应用法学研究中心,江西赣州341000

出　　处：《赣南师范大学学报》2017年第5期60-64,共5页Journal of Gannan Normal University

基　　金：江西省社会科学研究"十二五"规划项目(14FX06);赣州市社联课题(12251)

摘　　要：在我国食品药品违约之诉案件中,由谁对食品药品是否合格承担证明责任,实务上存在着截然不同的两种做法,一种做法是我国民法通说的具体体现,另一种则是受"规范说"影响的产物。我国民法通说将违约行为当作违约责任的构成要件,并认为应该由债权人对债务人存在违约行为承担证明责任;"规范说"则将违约行为的反面视作债权消灭的事由,进而认为应该由债务人对其已经履行合同义务(即不存在违约行为)承担证明责任。两者分歧的理论根源在于是否承认违约责任的独立性。有关违约行为的证明责任承担,应采纳我国民法通说的观点,舍弃"规范说"关于违约行为证明责任承担的观点。There are two points of view about the allocation of burden of proof about whether the food or drug, provided by the seller, is in accordance with the contractual or statutory quality standards in a breach of food or drug consumption contract lawsuit. The view of the majority is the specific expression of the view generally accepted by home-grown civil scholars, while the minority is the product of the influence by Die Normentheorie. The home-grown view regards the breach of contract as a constitutive requirement of liability and holds that the creditor should bear the burden of proof, while the Die Normentheorie treats the debtor＇s Compliance（ with the contract ） as a ground eliminating the creditor＇s fight and holds that the debtor should bear the burden of proof. The root cause of the difference is the answer to whether liability for breach of contract is identical in nature with debt？ We＇d better adopt the home-grown view and abandon the view of Die Normentheorie when allocating the burden of proof about breach of contract.

关 键 词：违约行为 违约责任 证明责任 规范说 食品药品消费 

分 类 号：D915.13[政治法律—诉讼法学]