举证责任的分配通过实体法予以确定,但举证程度是否充分的判断具有主观性,法官对举证程序的心证有时难为外人知晓,在当事人对举证程度的判断与法官的判断不一致时,若法官拘泥于司法形式上的中立性、被动性,不顾当事人可能补充证据完成举证责任的可能性,贸然判决一主当事人举证不足而败诉,显然不符合诉讼制度的本意,故对举证是否充分进行释明是必要的。对举证进行释明,应以探求案件真实为前提,在当事人主张的事实范围内,针对法律关系的构成要件事实和抗辩事由进行释明。同时,释明的方法有多种,进行相应释明时,既要让当事人清楚其举证存在的不足,也要避免让另一方当事人误解法官丧失了中立立场,故而对举证进行释明时要注意选取适宜的方式方法。 The distribution of the burden of proof is determined through the substantive law. However, the judgment of whether the degree of proof is sufficient is sometimes subjective. Judges may sometimes find it hard to know the evidence of the procedure of proof. If the judge disagrees with the judge’s judgment, Neutrality and passivity in the judicial form, regardless of the possibility of the parties may supplement the evidence to complete the burden of proof, rashly judge the main party to defend the case of insufficient evidence, obviously does not meet the original intention of the litigation system, so whether the proof is sufficient necessary. To explain the evidence, the facts of the case should be based on the truth of the case and within the scope of the facts claimed by the parties, the facts and defenses of the constitutional elements of the legal relationship should be explained. At the same time, there are many ways to explain. When making corresponding explanations, it is necessary to make the parties aware of the shortcomings of their evidences and to prevent the other party from misunderstanding that the judges have lost their neutral position. Therefore, we should pay attention to explaining the evidences Select the appropriate way.