 |
English
|
正體中文
|
简体中文
|
Post-Print筆數 : 27 |
Items with full text/Total items : 113656/144643 (79%)
Visitors : 51719781
Online Users : 631
|
|
|
Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96720
|
| Title: | 證明度之研究 |
| Other Titles: | The Standard of Proof |
| Authors: | 姜世明
Chiang, shyh-ming |
| Keywords: | 確信;蓋然性;證明度;舉證責任;證據評價;自由心證 |
| Date: | 2007-08 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-05-19 11:43:43 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 所謂證明度，係指法院認定事實所需最低下限之心證度。其固可被認為係民事實體法之研究領域，但實際上，此一問題更屬程序法學者所關注之重點。若民事法學上能對此加以確立其標準，於法院自由心證運用之合理化，自有莫大之助益。\\r基本上，法院於言詞辯論後，審酌全部訴訟資料，對於待證事實是否為真固可形成一定之心證，但該事實主張能否被認為係真實，則仍須以法官之心證度是否已符合證明度之要求為其標準。如此，證明度高低之設定即直接影響當事人於訴訟上權利主張之實現可能性。亦即，對證明度之要求，其程度之差異，將決定待證事實能否容易被證明，因而可認為其已涉及相關法規適用範圍大小之問題，其與實體法之價值決定乃有一定之關聯；然而，在程序法上，藉由證明度降低，實亦有舉證責任減輕之效果。此一制度於實體法及程序法上，乃均具有其一定之作用。可慮者係，證明度之學說雖包括「殆可謂其為確實之真實」、「優越蓋然性」及「通常人所不置疑之高度蓋然性」等理論，但仍難免失諸抽象。如何克服法官恣意及避免自由心證之濫用，仍為識者所關心之重點。\\r就此，在我國固已有學者提出若干甚具價值之見解，惟相較於先進國家法學之發展成果，似尚非可同日而語，則對於外國法之相關學術發展，應仍有引介參考之空間。本文希藉由對於德、奧法制學理之研究，提供國內學界及實務界對該制度法理，能有進一步之理解基礎，或能作為我國對於此一制度研究發展之另一起點。
The Court’s major responsibility in the civil procedure is to determine facts and to apply the laws. Whether the court can appropriately apply the law depends on whether the court has determined the facts correctly. Thus, there is no doubt about the importance of fact-finding in the civil procedure. Although the civil procedural code has provided some fact-finding methods and procedures, how exactly should the court decide on the truthfulness of fact,i.e., what standard of proof is required to reach a verdict, still remains unclear. Even though scholars in Taiwan have already provided a lot of theories to solve this issue, such as “judge’s conviction”, “preponderance of evidence” and “high probability beyond the reasonable doubt”, the risk of judge’s arbitrariness still remains due to the abstractness of these theories. The uncertainty and the difficulty to review the court’s verdict have thus caused the distrust on the court among the public. To solve this problem, this paper will review relevant literature in Germany and Austria, and analyze the function, standard, and exceptions to the requirement of proof. By linking the jurisprudence to the practices of the court, I hope to clarify this issue und provide a reasonable und useful standard of proof for the civil procedure in Taiwan. |
| Relation: | 法學評論, 98, 307-402 |
| Data Type: | article |
| Appears in Collections: | [政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 98(307-402).pdf | | 955Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 5611 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.
2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(
nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(
nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
