论法官对民事实体抗辩的释明

The Judge's Interpretation about Civil Substantive Defense

最高人民法院对诉讼时效抗辩和违约金调整抗辩在法官释明问题上作出了迥异规定,这使得明确法官应否对民事实体抗辩进行释明这一问题具有重要现实意义,而研究该问题的逻辑起点在于民事实体抗辩中事实抗辩和权利抗辩的二元界分。效力形式的不同是事实抗辩和权利抗辩的根本区别,对于两者的类型化分析能够引导法官正确判断当事人民事实体抗辩的具体类型。建基于法官在能否对事实抗辩和权利抗辩主动援引问题上的不同,法官应依职权对事实抗辩进行释明以防裁判突袭,不应对权利抗辩进行积极释明,但应当在当事人已经提出权利抗辩的构成要件事实时进行消极释明。

Whether judges interpret the defense of limitation and the defense of the adjustment of excessive liquidated damages is prescribed by Supreme Court differently, which renders clarifying whether judges have to interpret civil substantive defense a practically significant problem, and the distinction between fact defense and right defense in civil substantive defense is the logical starting point to solve this problem. The radical difference between fact defense and right defense lies in different effect forms, and sorting these two through analysis can guide judges make a correct judgment on the type of civil substantive defense of parties in action. According to the different opinions as to whether they can actively quote fact defense and right defense, it is not hard to infer that judges shall interpret fact defense to avoid attacking judgment, they shall not interpret right defense actively, but when parties in action have brought forward the essential facts of right defense shall judges make a passive interpretation of right defense.