论“重大误解且与事实不符”的自认撤销组合事由——从《民事证据规定(2019)》第9条再出发

On the Combination Cause of Revoking Self-admission with“Significant Misunderstanding and Inconsistent with Facts”:Starting from Article 9 of the Civil Evidence Rules in 2019

自认撤销(撤回)规则是民事自认制度的核心和争议规则之一。与《民事证据规定(2001)》相比,《民事证据规定(2019)》一体删除了“胁迫”和“重大误解”事由中的“与事实不符”条件。删除胁迫事由中的“与事实不符”解决了额外增加自认人证明负担、鼓励相对人实施违法行为等扭曲激励问题,进步显著。不过,继续坚持不区分“胁迫”与“重大误解”两种自认意思瑕疵的立场,删除重大误解事由中的“与事实不符”,并不合适。事实上,“与事实不符”不仅是自认人证明和法官判断重大误解的有效工具,而且能够发挥保护自认相对人信赖的独特功能,我们应当坚持“重大误解且与事实不符”的组合事由。在自认与“真实”的关系上,问题不在于自认制度是否要考虑真实,而在于何种方式和程度上考虑“真实”。

The revocation(withdrawal)rule of self-admission is one of the core rules and disputable rules of civil self-admission system.Compared with the Civil Evidence Rules in 2001,the Civil Evidence Rules in 2019 deletes the condition of“inconsistent with facts”in both causes of“duress”and“significant misunderstanding”.The deletion of“inconsistent with the facts”in the duress cause solves the problems of distorting incentives,such as increasing the burden of proof of the self-admitted person and encouraging the counterpart to commit illegal acts.It makes remarkable progress.However,it is not appropriate to continue to hold the position of not distinguishing between“duress”and“significant misunderstanding”and to delete the condition of“inconsistent with the facts”in the cause of significant misunderstanding.In fact,“inconsistent with the facts”is not only an effective tool for self-admitted person to prove significant misunderstanding and judges to judge significant misunderstanding,but also can play a unique role in protecting the trust of the self-admitted person’s counterpart.We should adhere to the combination cause of“significant misunderstanding and inconsistent with the facts”to revoke the self-admission.In terms of the relationship between the self-admission system and the truth,the problem is not whether the selfadmission system should consider the truth,but in what way and to what extent.