证明责任视角下的抗辩与否认界别

The Distinction between Defense and Denial from the Perspective of Burden of Proof

抗辩与否认的根本差异在于对请求原因事实的攻击路径:抗辩排斥请求原因事实发生的法律效果,承认请求原因事实的客观存在;否认直接排斥请求原因事实本身。在结果意义上的证明责任层面,以上本质差异填补了"抗辩者承担证明责任,否认者不承担"的论证缺口。进而可知,《最高人民法院关于审理民间借贷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》第17条中的"被告辩称"的性质是积极否认,被告不对该事实主张负担结果意义上的证明责任。在行为意义上的证明责任层面,结合规范意旨以及民间借贷案件事实认定具有相当难度的客观现实,应遵从被告举证在先、原告举证在后的顺位,施以被告事案解明义务,以促进确定争点、发现事实、克服真伪不明。

The essential distinction between defense and denial lies in the attacking path towards the fact of cause of action. Compared to the fact that denial attacks the objective existence of the fact of cause of action,defense attacks the legal effect of the fact of cause of action while acknowledging the fact itself,which,from the perspective of burden of proof,provides thoughts on the argumentation of litigants whose defense bear the burden of proof while those who deny don＇t. The nature of the defendant＇s defense in Article 17 of Judicial Interpretation of Private Lending is active denial,so the defendant only bears the burden of providing evidence,with no obligation for burden of proof. From the perspective of burden of providing evidence,under the legislation and the background that it ＇s of significant difficulty to determine facts in cases of private lending,judges should obey the rules that the defendant provides evidence before the plaintiff,which means the defendant is bound to disclose case facts,so as to promote ascertaining issues,exploring facts and overcoming the status of non-liquet.