我国民事诉讼逾期举证法律规制之反思——基于400份判决书的文本分析  

Reflection on the Legal Regulation ofLate Evidence in Civil Litigation in China:——Textual Analysis Based on 400 Judgments

作　　者：鲍啟芳 BAO Qi-fang(Law School of Wuhan University,Wuhan 430072,China)

机构地区：[1]武汉大学法学院,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《太原学院学报（社会科学版）》2023年第6期44-55,共12页Journal of Taiyuan University(Social Science Edition)

摘　　要：对于逾期提供的证据,现行立法根据逾期举证当事人的主观过错程度和相应证据客观上是否“与基本事实有关”,予以是否采纳和适用训诫、罚款的制裁。判决书分析表明,前述规制路径在司法实践中的运行效果并不理想。实践中对逾期举证的规制措施与规制理由整体上不匹配,存在“采纳”的错误适用、“罚款”制裁的搁置和“与基本事实有关”认定的过当等误区,背离了避免不必要的诉讼迟延之立法目的,使得对逾期举证的规制在很大程度上名存实亡。对于因故意或重大过失逾期提供的证据,应当以失权规制,同时摒弃“与基本事实有关”要件、增设诉讼迟延要件,在此基础上规范法官裁判。The current legislation provides for the admission of late evidence,the application of admonition and fines,depending on the subjective degree of fault of the party who has provided late evidence and whether the corresponding evidence is objectively"relevant to the basic facts".The analysis of the judgments shows that the regulatory path does not work well in judicial practice.In judicial practice,there is an overall mismatch between the measures to regulate late evidence and the reasons for regulation,and there are misapplications of"admissible",the shelving of"fine"sanctions and improper determination of"relevant to the basic facts".These misconceptions have led to a departure from the legislative purpose of avoiding unnecessary delays in litigation,leaving the regulation of late largely largely ineffective.The late provision of evidence due to intentional or gross negligence should be regulated by loss of authority,while abandoning the element of"relevant to the basic facts"and adding the element of delay in litigation to regulate judges'decisions on this basis.

关 键 词：逾期举证 证据失权 规制措施 裁判误区 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]