判决书说理中的民事裁判逻辑——围绕《民事诉讼法》第155条展开  

Civil Adjudication Logic in Judgement Reasoning——About the Article 155 of Civil Procedure Law

作　　者：傅郁林[1,2] Fu Yulin

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院 [2]中国民事诉讼法学研究会

出　　处：《中国应用法学》2022年第1期62-75,共14页China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence

摘　　要：《民事诉讼法》第155条规定判决书说理应包括认定事实的理由和适用法律的理由,但事实理由与法律理由之间的关系所蕴含的裁判逻辑,不是"事实+法律=判决",而是"事实→法律→判决"。最高人民法院发布的《民事诉讼文书样式》示范的判决书说理如:"本案当事人围绕诉讼请求依法提交了证据,本院组织当事人进行了证据交换和质证。"但在诉讼请求(A)与证据(D)之间是通过请求权基础(B)和法律要件(b)/要件事实(C)而形成逻辑链条的。这一逻辑关系的断裂,在判决书中表现为"本院认为"的法律适用与"本院查明"的事实无关,在庭审调查中表现为以质证替代证明、以证据替代事实。前者导致法律适用的恣意,后者导致了庭审功能虚化,并共同导致审判效率低下而错误风险增加。Article 155 of Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that the judgment shall include the facts causes as found in the judgment and the basis of application of the law, but the logic of adjudication implied by the relationship between the factual and legal reasons is not “facts + law = judgment”, but “facts → law → judgment”. The“Formats for Litigation Documents” issued by the Supreme People’s Court demonstrates the judgment reasoning such as: “The parties submitted evidence around the litigation request in accordance with the law, and the Court organized the parties to exchange and cross-examine evidence.” However, a logical chain between the claim(A) and the evidence(D) is formed through the basis of the claim(B) and the legal elements(b)/essential facts(C). The break in this logical relationship is manifested in the judgment document as the application of the law in the part of “the Court opinions” is irrelevant to the facts that “the Court finds”, and in the trial investigation as the substitution of proof is replaced by cross-examination and facts is replaced by evidence. The former leads to arbitrary application of the law, while the latter leads to the vitiated function of the trial, and together leads to inefficient trial and increased risk of error.

关 键 词：判决书 庭审 民事裁判 裁判逻辑 裁判文书 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]