时效抗辩制度的证明责任分配探讨

On the Distribution of Burden of Proof in Prescription Defense

经历了一段时间的理论分歧后,对于客观证明责任的分配规则,罗森贝克的“规范说”已经被逐渐接纳。谈及时效制度的证明责任分配时,一些学者乃至理论提出者本人都直接给出结论,即主张时效抗辩者承担时效届满要件的证明责任,主张时效中断者承担中断事由要件的证明责任,而其背后的理由仅寥寥数语。回溯“规范说”、抗辩权的相关理论,就能发现简单地认为时效抗辩规范具有规范的双重性是不恰当的,而应该进一步区分为时效抗辩权发生规范和时效抗辩规范。如此,方能在时效制度证明责任分配上真正地贯彻“规范说”。

After a period of theoretical controversy,local theory has gradually accepted rosenberg's"normative theory"as the main rule for the distribution of objective burden of proof.When it comes to the distribution of the burden of proof of the prescription system,a large number of scholars and even the proponents of the theory have directly reached a conclusion,that is,those who advocate the defense of prescription bear the burden of proof of the elements of the expiration of prescription,and those who advocate the interruption of prescription bear the burden of proof of the elements of interruption,and the reasons behind it are only a few words.Looking back on the"normative theory"and the relevant theories of the right of defense,we can find that it is inappropriate to simply think that the norm of prescription defense has the duality of norms,but it should be further divided into the occurrence norm of prescription defense and the norm of prescription defense.Therefore,the"normative theory"can be truly implemented in the distribution of burden of proof in the prescription system.