商事合同目的解释中举证责任的个案反思  

A Case Study on the Burden of Proof in the Interpretation of the Purpose of Commercial Contracts

作　　者：李建伟[1] 李亚超 LI Jianwei;LI Yachao

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学民商经济法学院 [2]中国政法大学企业合规与营商环境研究中心 [3]中国政法大学

出　　处：《法治研究》2023年第3期106-116,共11页Research on Rule of Law

基　　金：阐释党的十九届四中全会精神国家社会科学基金重大项目“营商环境法治化的制度架构与实现研究”(项目编号:20ZDA044)阶段性成果。

摘　　要：司法实践中,法官总是过度介入当事人权利义务内容的确定,这在商事合同解释过程中尤为明显。在多份合同场景下,如当事人一方主张合同条款与合同性质、目的之间存在实质冲突,其应承担较重的举证证明责任,即有义务证明“合同目的”的客观真实性。法官不应继续按照传统合同解释的思路试图自行探寻合同目的,而直接免除当事人的举证责任,进而不当否定合同条款效力。此做法是对私法自治的否定,更是对民事诉讼独特价值的否定。未来司法应完善并尊重经由当事人举证来确定当事人权利义务的诉讼规则,避免家长式裁判的过分干预。In judicial practice,judges have always been excessively involved in the determination of the rights and obligations of the parties,which is particularly evident in the process of commercial contract interpretation.When there are multiple contracts,if a party claims that there is a substantial conflict between the terms of the contract and the nature and purpose of the contract,it should bear a heavier burden of proof,that is,it is obliged to prove the objective authenticity of the"purpose of the contract".Judges should not continue to try to explore the purpose of the contract on their own according to the idea of traditional contract interpretation,and directly exempt the parties from the burden of proof,thus improperly denying the validity of the contract terms.This practice is not only a denial of the autonomy of private law,but also a denial of the unique value of civil litigation.In the future,the judiciary should improve and respect the procedural rules that determine the rights and obligations of the parties through the proof of the parties,and avoid the excessive interference of paternalistic judges.

关 键 词：私法自治 合同漏洞 复杂合同 证明责任 思维范式 

分 类 号：D923.6[政治法律—民商法学]