earticle

영어

As an important system in the law of evidence, the primary-face proof gradually developed after the implementation of the German Civil Procedure Law of 1877. Especially after the implementation of the law, difficulties from the thinking mode of legal evidence turns to free proof, also regarded as the premise of the development of the primary-face proof system by theorists. Based on the deep accumulation of theories and legal precedents, and the irreplaceable role of primary-face proof in proof of causality and accountability in judicial practice, the German Civil Procedure Law recognized the primary-face proof in specific cases in 2005. In practice, the German Court of Appeal often used the primary-face proof as a means of correcting the facts determined by lower courts. Therefore, it is of great significance to strengthen the judges' free proof and to relieve the litigants’ difficulty in proving causation and fault. In China’s current judicial practice, there are a large number of cases in which the factual presumption of judging is abused. The judges deliberately use the presumption of fact to damage the interests of litigants, resulting in the lack of judicial credibility. The first reason is that the broadness of the factual presumption gives the space for the judge to operate freely, because the specific known facts required by the factual presumption and the probability correspond with daily life experience is quite different, Judges, by factual presumption, can also exempt the litigants from the responsibility of giving proof in view of the fact that the probability is low; secondly, the quality of the judge is not high, imperfect understanding of the factual presumption leads to misusing of factual presumption. There are a large number of wrongdoings of factual presumption in practice, so there is a claim in both German and Chinese academic circles to replace the factual presumption with primary-face proof. Therefore, China should introduce a system of primary-face proof to make it parallel with the factual presumption. These two systems should be applied according to the strength of the probability, so that judges can form a conviction on the facts of the case, and to prevent the judge from abusing the judicial power and harming the interests of the litigants in order to achieve fairness and justice.

한국어

중국은 현재 사법실무에 있어 판사가 사실추정을 통하여 판결함으로써 당사자의 이 익을 해치고, 사법공신력을 초래하는 등 사실추정을 통한 재판을 남발하는 사례가 발 생하고 있다. 그 이유는 첫째, 사실추정 규정의 광범위성이 판사에게 사실을 추정할 여지를 제공 하고, 사실추정에 있어 그 요건에 있어서도 구체적인 사실과 일상생활 경험에 대응하 는 개연성의 정도 차이가 매우 크다. 이로 인해 판사가 개연성이 낮은 사실에 대해서도 사실추정을 하여 당사자의 거증책임을 면제할 수 있다. 둘째, 법관의 자질이 높지 않아 사실추정에 대한 이해가 부족하여 사실추정을 오용할 수 있다는 것이다. 실무에서 사 실추정을 잘못한 사례가 많아 독일과 중국 학계에서 표현증명으로 대체하자는 주장이 나오고 있다. 따라서 중국은 판사가 사법권을 남용하여 당사자의 이익을 침해하는 것을 막기 위하 여 판사가 사건의 진실에 대해 확신을 갖도록 하는 표현증명제도를 도입할 필요가 있다.

중국어

作为证据法上的重要制度，表见证明系经德国1877年民事诉讼法施行后的司法判例 渐次发展而成。尤其是该法实施之后，自法定证据思考模式转向自由心证主义所发生适 应上的困难，更是被理论界视为表见证明制度发展的前提基础。基于学说和判例的深厚 积累，以及表见证明在司法实践中对于因果关系和可归责性的证明发挥着不可替代的作 用，2005年德国民事诉讼法承认了特定情形下的表见证明。实践中，德国上诉法院更是 常常将表见证明作为纠正下级法院的事实认定的修正手段。因此，表见证明在强化法官 心证、纾解当事人关于因果关系及过错的证明困难等方面具有重要意义。 中国目前司法实践中，出现大量滥用事实推定裁判的案件，法官肆意运用事实推定 损害当事人的利益，造成司法公信力缺失等问题。究其原因，一是事实推定规定的宽泛 性给了法官自由操作的空间，因为事实推定要求的具体已知事实和日常生活经验对应的 盖然性强弱差别非常大，法官针对盖然性低的事实也可以通过事实推定免除当事人的举 证责任；二是法官素质不高，对事实推定的理解不透彻，导致其误用事实推定。实务中 存在大量运用事实推定出现错误的案件，所以在德国和中国学界都存在以表见证明代替 事实推定的主张。 因此，中国应当引入表见证明制度，使其与事实推定两轨并行，按事实的盖然性强 弱分别适用这两种制度，使法官对案件事实形成内心确信，防止法官滥用司法权力损害 当事人利益，以期实现公平正义。