引言对于文书的真伪在当事人间进行争议,在我国司法实践中经常遇到。而出现这种争议时,具体审理案件的法官对于此时的举证责任会作出不同的分配。由于举证责任的分配关系到诉讼的成败,因此正确的分配举证责任则就成了案件胜败的关键要素。也正是因为这一点,在实践中,对于如何分配“文书真伪”问题的证明责任,对于当事人而言至关重要;也正是因为如此,有论者提出应当将举证责任分配错误作为再审事由加以规定。~①当然,在实践中出现这一问题,还有一个重要的原因就在于对于文书真伪的鉴定双方当事人都不愿意主动申请, Introduction For the authenticity of the instrument in the dispute between the parties, often encountered in our judicial practice. When such a dispute arises, the judge who examines the case in particular will make a different distribution of the burden of proof at this time. Since the distribution of the burden of proof is related to the success or failure of a lawsuit, the correct allocation of the burden of proof becomes the key element of the case’s victory or defeat. Precisely because of this, in practice, the burden of proof on how to assign the issue of “document authenticity” is crucial to the parties. It is also for this reason that some scholars have suggested that the burden of proof should be allocated incorrectly As a cause of retrial. Of course, one of the important reasons for the emergence of this problem in practice lies in the unappreciated application of both parties to the identification of the authenticity of the document,