民事证明责任分配之解释基准——以物权法第106条为分析文本
徐涤宇民事证明责任分配之解释基准——以物权法第106条为分析文本
Interpretation Standard on the Allocation of Burden of Proof under Civil Law
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：徐涤宇
单位：中南财经政法大学法学院
中文关键词：善意取得;证明责任;规范目的;解释基准
英文关键词：acquisition in good faith;burden of proof;normative purpose;legal hermeneutics
中文摘要：
就证明责任如何分配,学理上存在多种判断基准,以至于引发不同的结论。以物权法第106条的证明责任问题为例,存在“善意推定说”、“善意要件之批评说”、“善意要件之肯定说”等学理争议。就上述学说,需要回到法学方法论的立场进行评判。证明责任的确定,实际上是实体法规范的解释问题,应遵循当代法解释学以规范目的为核心的方法论。也即确定民事证明责任分配的法解释学操作,应当以规范目的为其基准。这种操作首先是综合各种解释方法,论证物权法第106条的规范目的;其次是从规范目的出发而非拘泥于法条的文义,重新对该条的证明责任分配进行确定,并在此基础上对上述三种学说进行评判。这种分析路径和结论,不仅验证了以规范目的为解释基准的方法论的可行性,而且也实现了证明责任问题与主流法学方法论的合流。
英文摘要：
Currently there are many different judgment standards on the allocation of the burden of proof under the civil law, leading to many different conclusions. For example, three different theories, namely the theory of “good faith presumption”, the theory of “confirmation of good faith element” and the theory of “criticism of good faith element” have been put forward as standard for the determination of the burden of proof provided for in Article 106 of the Chinese Property Law. We need to judge the above theories on the basis of legal methodology. In fact, the determination of the burden of proof is in essence a question of how to interpret the norms of substantive law and therefore should also follow the methodology of legal hermeneutics that takes the normative purpose as its core. In other words, the operation of the legal hermeneutics for the allocation of burden of proof should take the purpose of the norm as its standard. We should first demonstrate the purpose of the Article 106 of the Property Law through the integrated application of various interpreting methods. Then, we should re-determine the allocation of the burden of proof under this article according to the purpose of this article, rather than its literal meaning, and judge the advantages and disadvantages of above three theories. This analytical approach and its conclusions can not only test the feasibility of the methodology that takes the purpose of norm as the standard of legal interpretation, but also achieve the confluence of the burden of proof and the mainstream legal methodology.
全文阅读： 点击下载
