论民事诉讼中的证明责任分配.pdfVIP

摘 要 民事诉讼中的证明责任素有 “民事诉讼的脊梁”之称,德国学者罗森贝克 （Rosenberg）认为证明责任是通过分析实体法中法规范的逻辑结构进行分配，法官 无权对证明责任分配自由裁量。我国是成文法国家，由于法律的制定具有滞后性特 征，新类型的案件可能会造成法官难以分配证明责任，严格按照法律要件分类说分 配证明责任在一些特殊案件处理上可能会导致不公平的结果。大陆法系国家为了追 求法律的稳定性、可判性，在分配证明责任上采用法律要件分类说为主，利益衡量 说为辅进行操作，在特殊案件中一般允许法官在根据原、被告的举证能力，并在诚 实信用原则等前提下，自由裁量分配证明责任。新颁布的 《最高人民法院关于适用 中华人民共和国民事诉讼法的解释》（以下简称 《民事诉讼法司法解释》）中第91 条，将法律要件分类说的观点作为理论依据，对证明责任分配规则形成成文解释。 本文以大陆法系基本证据理论，分析何为证明责任分配，在分配证明责任方面法官 能否拥有自由裁量权及法官如何行使自由裁量权分配证明责任，并力求提出解决的 初步方案。 关键词：民事诉讼;证据制度;证明责任分配;自由裁量权 I 万方数据 Abstruct The burden of proof in civil procedure is usually known as the backbone of civil litigation”. German scholar Rosenberg thought that the allocation of the burden of proof was through the analysis of the legal norms in the logical structure of the entity and the judgehad no rightsto distribute it.China is a statute law country.Asthe Legislation has a lag,thenew type casesmake it difficult forjudgesto assign theburden ofproof.Finally it leads the result that it’s unfair to distribute the burden of proof strictly according to the classification of legal requirement. The civil law countries normally give priority to the legal elements of classification and accept interest measure said to be second for the stability and expectation of the law. Generally judges distribute the burden of proof on some special cases according to the principle of fairness, honesty combined with the factors such astheproof ability isallowed.Article 91ofthenewly promulgated of 《The supreme peoples court about applicable of the civil procedure law of the Peoples RepublicofChina hasexplainedtherule oftheburden ofproof accordingtothetheory