论文部分内容阅读
以法律要件分类说为典型的古典证明责任的立足点在于实体法法律规范性质的分析,该理论自提出以来历经德、日民事法学人的沉淀洗练,曾成为学界的通说。但是,法律要件分类说不但在规范分类、间接反证、主观举证责任分类标准等问题上难以理清各种理论纷争,而且其对于动态诉讼过程中当事人举证责任的转换以及与证明标准的关系缺乏必要的关注,也难以与现代民事诉讼的辩论主义、争点整理程序相协调。我国民事证明责任改革应当从“法律要件分类说”的迷思中走出,以“阶段的举证责任论”来重新构建我国的民事证明责任。
The classification of legal elements as the typical classical burden of proof is based on the analysis of the nature of legal norms of substantive law. Since the introduction of this theory, the deposition of civil jurisprudence practitioners in Germany and Japan has become the common saying of the academic community. However, the classification of legal elements not only makes it difficult to sort out various theoretical disputes on such issues as standard classification, indirect evidence inversion and subjective evidence classification, but also lacks the necessary knowledge of the conversion of the burden of proof and the standard of proof in the process of dynamic litigation It is also difficult to reconcile the arguments and disputes in modern civil litigation. The reform of civil burden of proof in our country should come out from the myth of classification of legal elements and to reconstruct the civil burden of proof in the stage of proof burden of responsibility.