现代型诉讼中事案解明义务的程序构造

The Procedural Construction of the Obligation to Clarify Cases in Modern Litigation

对我国民事诉讼而言,事案解明义务具有保障当事人实质平等、充实审理过程、促使发现事实真相进而公正裁判等特殊价值,适用事案解明义务有助于解决证据偏在案件中的证明困难,是《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第六十三条真实义务的体现。考察日本事案解明义务的理论和实践可以发现,事案解明义务的要件理论可以限定其适用的范围,为实务操作提供更为具体的指引,也在一定程度上限制了法官的自由裁量权,防止恣意裁判。在此基础上,考虑到事案解明义务自身的复杂特征,应在“类案+要件”的例外化范围内承认事案解明义务,同时事案解明义务的构建应注意与民事诉讼程序的衔接,应以口头辩论终结前为限制,由法官依职权根据案件情况加以判断和适用,但需提前告知当事人事案解明义务的效果及违反后果,判决书中也应充分说明适用事案解明义务的理由。

For China’s civil litigation,the obligation to clarify has special values such as ensuring the substantive equality of the parties,enriching the trial process,promoting the discovery of the truth and then making a fair judgment,the introduction of the obligation to clarify will help to solve the difficulty of proving that the evidence is biased in the case,which is the embodiment of the truth obligation in Article 63 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures.Reviewing the theory and practice of the obligation to clarify in Japan,we can find that the elements of the obligation to clarify can limit its scope of application,provide more specific guidance for practical operation,and limit the discretion of judges to a certain extent to prevent arbitrary judgment.On this basis,considering the complex characteristics of the obligation to clarify,we should recognize the obligation to clarify within the scope of the exception of“Cases of the same type+constitutive requirements”.At the same time,the construction of the obligation to clarify should be connected with the civil procedure.Before the end of oral debate,it shall be judged and applied by the judge.However,the parties shall be informed in advance of the effect and consequences of violation of the obligation to clarify,and the reasons for the application of the obligation to clarify shall be fully stated in the judgment.