论文部分内容阅读
我国传统理论将民事诉讼的证明对象界定为案件事实。这一理论存在的问题是:产生逻辑上的悖论,内涵与外延不符,不能明确具体诉讼中证明活动的对象,以及不能对证明活动提供有效的指引。鉴于证明对象与诉讼主张之间的契合性,应当诉讼主张作为证明活动的对象。其合理性在于:可以避免使用“案件事实”引发的误解,可以使法律规定与理论解读相一致,可以更好地为当事人举证提供导向作用,可以更好地阐释证据制度中的许多论题,如证据的“关联性”、证明责任、证明标准、免证事项等。
The traditional theory of our country defines the object of civil procedure as the facts of the case. The problem with this theory is that there is a logical paradox, the connotation and the extension do not match, the object of the proof of activity in the specific litigation can not be clarified, and effective guidance can not be provided for the proof. In view of the compatibility between the object of proof and the lawsuit, litigation claim should be taken as the object of the proof activity. Its rationality is that it avoids the misunderstanding caused by the use of “case facts”, makes the legal provisions consistent with the theoretical interpretation, can better provide guidance for the parties to prove the case and can better explain many issues in the evidence system , Such as evidence “relevance ”, proof of responsibility, proof of standards, exemption matters.