民事证明责任分配规范的法教义学新释  

A New Legal Dogmatics Explanation of Distribution Standard of Civil Burden of Proof

作　　者：段文波[1] Duan Wenbo

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学比较民事诉讼法研究中心

出　　处：《政法论坛》2020年第3期103-113,共11页Tribune of Political Science and Law

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目“庭审中心视角下的事实主张阶段化审查模式研究”(项目编号:19YJC820028)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：长期以来,我国一直将举证责任的本质视为行为责任,但经过20多年的努力,客观证明责任论已然成为学界通说。在此情形下,立法者潜意识里仍然以行为责任论为基础订立了若干证明责任的分配条款,反而造成概念上的重复与分配规则上的繁杂。其根本原因在于,以行为责任论为基础预先制定证明责任分配规则本身包含了行为责任变动不居而不能事前制定的逻辑错误,加之对于"谁主张、谁举证"中主张的误解,终致补充规定均属画蛇添足。此条原则本系契合规范说的客观证明责任分配规则。其中所谓主张,对原告意味着请求原因,对被告意味着抗辩。而抗辩的内容则包括权利消灭事实、变更事实以及妨碍权利行使的事实。For a long time, the academia in China had always regarded the nature of the burden of proof as the responsibility of conduct. However, after more than 20 years of efforts, the theory of objective burden of proof has become a common theory in the academic circle. In this case, the legislators still subconsciously based on the theory of behavioral responsibility, and made a number of distribution terms of burden of proof, which resulted in conceptual duplication and complicated distribution rules. The basic reason is that, based on the theory of behavioral responsibility, the distribution rules of burden of proof are formulated in advance, including the logical errors that behavioral responsibility always changes and cannot be formulated in advance, and the legislators’ misunderstanding of the asserting in "who asserts, who proofs" leads to the conclusion that the supplementary provisions are all gilding the lily. This principle is originally the distribution rules of objective burden of proof which is consistent with theory of regulation. The asserting means the reason for claim to the plaintiff and the defense to the defendant. The contents of the defense include the facts leading to the elimination of rights, the facts leading to change of rights and the facts impeding the exercise of rights.

关 键 词：提供证据责任 证明责任 主张责任 抗辩 

分 类 号：D925.13[政治法律—诉讼法学]