中国式举证责任制度的内在逻辑——以最高人民法院指导案例为中心的分析

The Internal Logic of the Chinese-Style Burden of Proof:An Analysis of the Guiding-Cases by the Chinese Supreme Court

我国目前司法实践中仍遵循"谁主张、谁举证"的举证责任分配规则,尤其流行在证据短缺导致事实难以判断的情况下"转换举证责任"。我国语境中的"真伪不明"及其裁判方法与大陆法系现代证明责任理论名同实异。此种中国式举证责任制度与学界长期倡导的大陆法系经典证明责任理论及我国现行法律规范之间均存在矛盾冲突,却高度契合中国文化观念基础,具有其自身内在逻辑与实践合理性。为解决理论与实践的矛盾,一方面,宜在事实认定领域承认并尝试建构此种中国式举证责任理论与制度,另一方面,对现代证明责任制度移植的重心宜从过去注重将"证明责任裁判"作为真伪不明时败诉负担的结果正当化功能,转向将"证明责任分配"作为调整民事审判过程的裁判方法论功能。

In Chinese current judicial practice,the general reason or common sense of"who claims,who proves the evidence"is still followed to distribute the"burden of proof"of the facts to be proved.It is especially popular to change the burden of proof when the lack of evidence leads to difficult judgment of facts.The consequence of this burden of proof is that the facts of the case are unfavorable to the party concerned.In the context of our country,the name of"non liquet"and its judgment method are different from the modern theory of burden of proof in continental law system.This Chinese-style burden of proof conflicts with the classical theory of burden of proof and the current legal norms of our country,but it is highly consistent with the foundation of Chinese cultural concept and has its own internal logic and practical rationality.In order to solve the contradiction between theory and practice,on the one hand,it is advisable to recognize and try to construct this kind of Chinese-style burden of proof in the field of fact recognition,on the other hand.The emphasis of the modern system of burden of proof should be put on the function of justifying the result of"burden of proof"as the burden of failure when the truth is not known in the past.The Shift to"burden of proof distribution"should be the adjustment of the civil trial process of the adjudication methodology function.