论文部分内容阅读
在我国的证明责任理论中,证明责任能不能在具体的诉讼过程中转移是一个颇有争议的问题。大多数的学者认为,证明责任是可以转移的;也有学者认为,证明责任在诉讼过程中是确定的,不可能发生转移。从证明责任的设置目的来看,它主要是为了防止法官以事实不清为理由,拒绝作出裁判。而法官在事实真伪不明的困难状态下如何作出裁判呢?必须借助证明责任规则。这就涉及到证明责任的分配问题。因此,证明责任分配在某种意义上来讲就是对事实真伪不明的败诉风险或不利后果的分担,由此可见,证明责任在具体的诉讼中由谁承担是由法律预先设置的,与诉讼的进行没有关系。因此,证明责任是不能够转移的。能够转移的只是提供证据的责任。
In our country’s theory of burden of proof, whether the burden of proof can be transferred in a specific litigation process is a controversial issue. Most scholars believe that the burden of proof can be transferred; some scholars believe that the burden of proof in the litigation process is to determine the transfer may not occur. From the perspective of the setting of the burden of proof, it is mainly aimed at preventing the judge from refusing to make a judgment on the ground of unclear facts. How to judge a judge in a difficult situation where the truth of the truth is unknown? We must rely on the burden of proof rules. This involves the assignment of burden of proof. Therefore, the distribution of burden of proof in a sense, is the risk of untrue loss of the truth or the adverse consequences of sharing, we can see that the burden of proof in a specific litigation by who is borne by the law set in advance, and litigation It does not matter. Therefore, the burden of proof can not be transferred. What can be transferred is only the responsibility to provide evidence.