检察院在办理民事抗诉案件中,为审查当事人的申诉理由是否成立,除查阅原审案卷外,往往还会通过各种途径进行调查、核实,诸如通知原审的当事人、证人谈话,询问案情,或者对专门问题委托有关部门进行鉴定。由于种种原因,检察院所取得的材料有可能和法院原审认定的证据及查明的事实发生偏差,检察院提起抗诉后,申诉人往往会以检察院所取得的材料作为证据提出,并要求法院予以认定。由于民事诉讼的私权属性,法院在采信该部分证据时遭遇理论和现实的冲突。本文立足于现行再审制度,对如何调和冲突进行了分析,并提出相关建议。 Procuratorate in handling civil protest cases, in order to examine the grounds of the parties to the appeal is established, in addition to access the original case files, often through various channels to conduct investigations and verification, such as informing the original trial parties, witnesses talk, ask the case, or specialized Problems commissioned by the relevant departments for identification. Due to various reasons, the materials obtained by the procuratorate may deviate from the evidence found by the court and the facts ascertained. After the procuratorate has initiated the protest, the complainant often submits the materials obtained by the procuratorate as evidence and requests the court to make the determination. Due to the private right attribute of civil lawsuit, the court encounters the conflict between theory and reality in collecting the part of evidence. Based on the current retrial system, this article analyzes how to reconcile conflicts and puts forward some suggestions.