提高民事诉讼证明标准的理论反思

Theoretical Reflections on Raising the Standard of Proof in Civil Litigations

《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》第109条针对欺诈、胁迫、恶意串通、口头遗嘱、赠与等事实,首次例外地将证明标准从"高度盖然性"提高到"排除合理怀疑",虽出于建立多层次民事证明标准体系、与民事实体法衔接等良好初衷,但实际存在诸多理论和实践困境:排除合理怀疑标准在民事诉讼领域缺乏足够共识,并且可能冲击高度盖然性的一般标准;民刑证明标准的混搭会模糊民事诉讼与刑事诉讼的界限;与民事实体法规则相协调的证据不充分;美国法和德国法并未提供提高证明标准的比较法论据;提高证明标准显示出对证明标准功能不切实际的期待;以规则提高标准的方式防范操作中的降低标准会引发规则指引的混乱。在高度盖然性的"高"标准确立并严格适用后,未来中国民事诉讼证明标准体系的作业应主要指向"降低"而非"提高"。

In order to establish multilevel standards of civil proof and coordinate with civil substantive law, as an exception, article 109 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law of the People＇ s Republic of China has improved the standard of proof for the first time from ＂high degree of probability＂ to ＂beyond reasonable doubt＂ in case of fraud, coercion, malicious collusion, nuncupative will, bestowal, etc. Although a well-intentioned attempt, there are still many theoretical and practical dilemmas as follows： first, applying the standard of beyond reasonable doubt in civil procedure lacks consensus and is likely to undermine the general standard of high degree of probability; second, a mixing of standards of civil and criminal proof may blur the line between civil and criminal action ; third, there is no sufficient evidence that improved standard of proof can better coordinate with civil substantive law; fourth, American and German law fail to provide grounds for raising standard of proof from the perspective of comparative law; fifth, raising standard of proof demonstrates an unrealistic expectation for its function; last but not least, to prevent the lowering of standard of proof by improving it may cause confusion of guidance of rules. After the standard of ＂high＂ degree of probability is fully established and strictly applied, the standard of proof in civil litigation of China should tend to be ＂lower＂ rather than ＂higher＂.