民事诉讼中掉包纠纷案件举证证明责任之探究  

Research on the Burden of Proof in Civil Litigation Cases of Switching

作　　者：张志英[1] 刘腾飞 ZHANG Zhi-ying;LIU Teng-fei(Law School,Zhengzhou University,Zhengzhou Henan 450000,China)

机构地区：[1]郑州大学法学院,河南郑州450000

出　　处：《廊坊师范学院学报（社会科学版）》2022年第3期57-62,共6页Journal of Langfang Normal University(Social Sciences Edition)

摘　　要：在民事诉讼掉包纠纷案件中,对于此物是彼物、此物非彼物的举证证明责任应当由何方承担这一问题,学者们观点不一,有的主张由买方证明商品未进行掉包,有的主张由卖方证明商品已进行掉包,并且在司法实践中对此类纠纷的处理也呈现出同样的两种态势。此类问题长期横亘在买卖双方之间已成顽疾之势,给社会经济发展带来了十分不利的影响。建立在相关学说和相关司法判例基础上的综合分析表明,由卖方对此物非彼物承担举证证明责任较为合理,更利于以现实困境为基点应对和解决纠纷。这不仅有利于在法学界形成解决此类问题的共识,亦有助于社会主义和谐市场的发展。In civil litigation cases of switching disputes, scholars have different opinions on the question of who should bear the burden of proof that this thing is another thing and this thing is not that thing, and some claim that the seller proves that the goods have been switched, and the handling of such disputes in judicial practice presents similarly two situations. Such problems have long been lingering between buyers and sellers and have become a stubborn disease, which has brought a very negative impact on social and economic development. The comprehensive analysis based on the relevant theories and relevant judicial precedents shows that it is more reasonable for the seller to bear the burden of proof to prove that this thing is not the other, and it is more conducive to deal with and resolve disputes based on practical difficulties. This is not only conducive to the formation of a consensus in the legal circle to solve such problems, but also to the development of a socialist harmonious market.

关 键 词：掉包 纠纷 举证证明 责任分配 

分 类 号：D915.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]