民事证据失权的经济分析

发布时间：2018-03-26 09:35

本文选题：民事诉讼　切入点：证据失权　出处：《山东师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：证据失权制度是民事诉讼法中的一项重要制度,是指法院根据具体情况确定当事人进行举证的法定期间,如果当事人没有在这个法定期间内或者超过法定期间举证,当事人则失去证据的提出权,逾期提供的证据材料也就失去了证明能力。因此,这一制度对于当事人来说至关重要,它直接影响到以后案件的审判;而对于法院来说,证据失权制度能够督促当事人及时举证,最大限度的避免诉讼拖延等恶意诉讼现象,进而提高诉讼效率、节约司法资源。这一制度发展到现在,已经得到世界上很多国家的认可,相关制度的设置和理论发展都很成熟。相比较而言,我国民事证据失权制度的发展在实践中遭遇了很多困境。我国在2002年正式引进了这一制度,最高人民法院发布的《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》标志着我国证据失权制度的确立。但遗憾的是这一规定过于超前,不能符合我国当时的社会发展,因而在实践中很难得到贯彻执行。在此后,我国又颁布了诸多法律规定来完善这一制度。2012年新民事诉讼法的出台以及之后的新民诉法解释都对这一制度进行了修正,但在实践中仍然出现了很多问题,法官在实际审理中很难遵循法律的相关规定,作出证据失权的决定。于是我们不禁要问,难道这一制度的存在是不合理的?如果合理,为什么会出现这些问题呢?是法官对现实的妥协还是这一制度本身出了问题?这些疑问都说明了我国对证据失权制度的改革远远不够,没有从根本上解决这些问题。笔者正是基于这种思考,提出了以法经济学为分析视角,来重新审视我国证据失权这一制度的观点。通过查阅相关资料,可以看出目前关于民事诉讼证据失权制度的研究已经很丰富,相关理论成果众多,但以法经济学为视角进行研究的著作还是比较少的。笔者借助法经济学的相关经济分析工具——对我国证据失权制度的生成和发展进行新的诠释,论证民事证据失权这一制度存在的正当性、合理性,并基于公正与效益价值的分析对民事证据失权制度的限度进行阐释,进而提出适合我国的相对最优的方案。本文主要从以下几个部分展开论述:文章第一部分重点解决两个问题:一是先对证据失权制度的相关理论进行概述,说明这一制度的基本含义并了解这一制度产生的历史渊源及发展历程;二是对这一制度进行经济分析,首先阐述法经济学的基本理论,然后提出了进行经济分析的具体思路,介绍经济分析的工具,以突出法经济分析的重要性及必要性。文章第二部分是对我国证据失权制度的产生及发展进行整体上的法经济学诠释。这一制度在我国从无到有、到经历的两次立法上的变迁,除了理论上的进步与革新,其背后与我国社会经济的发展,以及诉讼市场对该制度的需求也有重大关联。在此部分,我们基于法经济学的市场供求理论来进行分析。文章第三部分是基于成本与收益的分析方法,分别从成本与收益的角度对证据失权制度进行分析,以论证证据失权的正当性。通过研究当事人诉讼成本的构成,分析影响民事诉讼成本的因素,可以进一步帮助我们了解民事证据失权制度存在的合理性;而对诉讼效益的分析,以及利用成本收益对具体案例的阐述,更是体现了这一制度对实现诉讼效益最大化的独特作用。文章第四部分是本文重点。证据失权制度一直面临实体公正与程序公正的价值选择,笔者基于对公正效率价值的平衡性分析,对证据失权制度的限度进行了理论上的一般阐述。通过对域外其他国家证据失权制度的比较,笔者总结出几种失权模式,并结合我国当前形势,对证据失权的司法适用现状进行分析,指出其存在的问题。最后提出适合我国发展现状的证据失权模式,并对其进一步完善提出相关的改革措施。
[Abstract]:Evidence of loss of power system is an important system in civil procedure law, refers to the court to determine the statutory period party the burden of proof according to the specific circumstances, if the parties do not in the statutory period or exceed the statutory period of proof, the parties will lose the right to put forward the evidence, evidence for overdue will lose the ability to prove so. And this system is crucial for the parties, which directly affect the future of the trial of the case; and for the court, evidence of loss of the right system to urge the parties concerned in a timely manner of proof, the maximum to avoid delays in the proceedings and other malicious litigation phenomenon, and improve litigation efficiency, saving judicial resources. This system development until now, has been in many countries the world recognized, setting and theoretical development of the related system are very mature. In comparison, our civil proof losing right system in real development In practice encountered many difficulties. China formally introduced this system in 2002, the Supreme People's Court issued the "a number of provisions on evidence in civil proceedings marked the establishment of China's evidence of loss of the right system. But it is a pity that this provision is too advanced, can not meet the social development of our country, and so on in practice it is difficult to be carried out. Thereafter, China has promulgated a lot of laws and regulations to improve the interpretation of the new civil procedure law this system.2012 the new civil procedure law, after the introduction of this system has been modified, but in practice is still a lot of problems, the relevant provisions of the judge in the actual trial it is very difficult to follow the law, make the evidence of loss of the right decision. So we have to ask, is the existence of this system is unreasonable? If reasonable, why is there such a problem? Is a judge of reality also compromise This system is itself a problem? These questions are the reform of our country's loss of the right system of the evidence is not enough, not fundamentally solve these problems. The author is based on this thinking, put forward the law of economics perspective, to re-examine our evidence of loss of the right of this system through the point of view. Access to relevant information, we can see that the current research on the evidence of loss of civil rights system has been very rich, but many related theories, law and economics from the perspective of research work is still relatively small. With the help of related economic law and economics to analyze the generation and development of tools -- of our proof losing right system new interpretation, the legitimacy of the existence of this system of civil evidence proves the rationality of power, and the analysis of justice and benefit value of the civil proof losing right system based on the limits of interpretation, and The relative optimal for our scheme. The thesis includes the following parts: the first part mainly solves two problems: one is related to the theory of loss of the right system of evidence are summarized, explain the basic meaning of this system and understand the historical origin and development process of this system is two; the economic analysis of this system, firstly expounds the basic theory of law and economics, and then puts forward specific ideas for economic analysis, introduces the tools of economic analysis, in order to highlight the importance of economic analysis and necessity. The second part is the interpretation of law and Economics on the whole of the emergence and development of Chinese proof losing right system. This system in our country from scratch, to change two times on the legislative experience, in addition to progress and innovation in theory, and its development behind the social economy in our country, the city and the lawsuit The field of the system demand has great relevance. In this part, we based on the theory of law and economics of supply and demand in the market to carry on the analysis. The third part is the analysis method based on cost and income, respectively from the perspective of cost-benefit analysis of evidence of loss of the right system, the legitimacy of the evidence of loss of the right through. A study on the litigation cost, analysis of factors affecting the cost of civil litigation, can help us to understand further the rationality of civil evidence exists of loss of rights system; and for the benefit of litigation and the use of cost-benefit analysis, the specific cases described, is the embodiment of the unique role of this system in the lawsuit benefit maximization. The fourth part is the focus of this article. Evidence of loss of the right system has been facing substantive justice and procedural justice choice value, the balance of justice and efficiency analysis based on the value of. Proof losing right system limit of the general elaboration theory. Through the comparison of foreign countries proof losing right system, the author summarizes several loss power mode, combined with the current situation of our country, the status of the judicial application of invalidity of evidence analysis, points out the existing problems. Finally, for the current situation of the development of our in the proof losing right mode, and puts forward some reform measures for its further improvement.

【学位授予单位】：山东师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】