【作者】 包冰锋；

【导师】 田平安；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民事诉讼法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 为了追求案件真实的发现和实现集中审理的目标，民事诉讼程序应当赋予当事人收集成为本案判决基础的证据的机会和手段。为了使这种程序保障的赋予具有实质性的作用，当事人应当有充分的权利收集与案件相关的证据以进行实际的攻防，否则这种程序保障将有论为仅止于形式之虞。再者，为了进一步保障当事人的程序主体地位，赋予其平衡追求系争实体利益及所涉程序利益的机会，当事人更需要获得对方当事人或第三人所持有的证据。但是，随着社会经济状况的变迁，公害、产品责任及医疗事故损害赔偿等现代性纠纷与日俱增，于其诉讼中不乏因证据仅存在于当事人其中一方或第三人手中而导致对方当事人证明困难的情况发生。为了贯彻当事人之间实质的武器平等原则，双方当事人之间以及与法院之间应当可以平等地接近并共同使用涉及本案请求的诉讼资料、证据资料及相关的法律上和事实上的资讯，这样才有充分的资料作为基础以形成妥当的裁判，也有助于当事人自主选择纠纷的处理和解决方式。在此背景下，民事诉讼法学领域的证明妨碍制度应运而生，通过对实施毁灭、隐匿、拒不提交证据等妨碍对方当事人证明活动的当事人或第三人课予其一定的不利益效果，以排除妨碍证明的行为并回复双方当事人诉讼地位的实质平等。本文正文部分由五章组成：第一章系民事诉讼证明妨碍制度的基本内涵与法理基础。我国国内学者一般将证明妨碍定义的较为简单，而且，国内学者一般也不区分证明妨碍、证明妨害和举证妨碍，都是在同一语义上使用这些词汇。本文参照日本和我国多数学者的习惯用法，采用证明妨碍的用语，证明妨碍制度是指当事人因可归责于对方当事人或第三人诉讼中或诉讼外、故意或过失的作为或不作为，致使自己的证明行为变得困难或不可能，从而法院在认定事实上作出对被妨碍的当事人有利调整的制度。进而，我们在分析证明妨碍符合何种要件得以成立和法院应当如何评价证明妨碍行为之前，必须先行讨论证明妨碍制度本身为何存在，即证明妨碍制度的法理基础问题。理论界关于证明妨碍制度法理基础的学说主要有实体法损害赔偿义务说、期待可能性说、经验法则说、民事诉讼诚实信用原则违背说、公平与制裁说和诉讼协力义务违反说。但是，证明妨碍制度的法理基础并不限于一端，而是兼容并蓄。虽然以上各项学说不足以独立解释证明妨碍制度的法理基础，但是各项学说的引入均是为了保障当事人的证明权。因此,以诉讼公正和诉讼效率为价值目标的“证明权保障说”构成证明妨碍制度的法理基础。第二章系民事诉讼证明妨碍制度的比较法考察。德国法院处理民事诉讼中证明妨碍行为的做法肇始于德国帝国法院1887年11月19日判决,该判决开创了德国司法实践中对证明妨碍行为加以规则的新见解。从立法例来看,德国《民事诉讼法》并未就证明妨碍制度作出一般性的规定,而是在书证、勘验和讯问当事人的部分就其表现形式和法律效果加以规定。日本《民事诉讼法》以其母法德国《民事诉讼法》为借鉴蓝本,同样并未就证明妨碍制度作出一般性的规定,而是在书证、勘验和讯问当事人的部分作出相应的规定。在美国,其整个法规范体系对证明妨碍行为均投射高度负面的评价。虽然在美国法历史发展的沿革上,证明妨碍的问题是起源于证据法,但是美国法对于证明妨碍行为的规制并非仅仅限于证据法的领域加以处理。按照其规定,依据证明妨碍行为的形态和轻重,可能会构成刑事犯罪行为、民事侵权行为和违反律师伦理规范行为。而我国台湾地区2000年修正“民事诉讼法”时先行于德国和日本《民事诉讼法》的规定,增设了证明妨碍制度的一般性规定,这使得证明妨碍制度从修正前个别规定的法理提升为民事诉讼法证据领域的一般性理论。而且,与证明妨碍制度的一般性规定相呼应,其“民事诉讼法”在文书提出命令、勘验协助义务和当事人讯问部分也有证明妨碍制度个别运用的规定。第三章系民事诉讼证明妨碍制度的构成要件。证明妨碍制度的构成要件包括主体要件、客体要件、主观要件和客观要件。就主体要件而言,不论是当事人还是第三人均可以构成证明妨碍行为的主体,其中当事人不仅包括不负证明责任的一方当事人,也包括负证明责任的一方当事人。就客体要件而言,文书、勘验物、证人、当事人和鉴定人五种证据方法均可以成为证明妨碍行为的客体。过错是构成证明妨碍的主观要件。过错是指行为人主观上的一种可归责的心理状态,具体表现为故意和过失两种形式。构成证明妨碍行为的客观要件相对较为复杂,其细分为时间要件、行为要件、结果要件和因果关系要件四个方面。就时间要件而言,不论是诉讼前或诉讼中,均可构成证明妨碍行为。就行为要件而言,作为和不作为均可以构成证明妨碍行为。就结果要件而言,应当达到当事人证明不能或证明困难而使案件事实无法查明的状态方可构成证明妨碍行为。就因果关系而言,证明妨碍行为与待证事实证明不能或证明困难的状态两者之间应当具有因果联系。第四章系民事诉讼证明妨碍制度的法律效果。民事诉讼中的证明妨碍行为导致案件事实无法查明，这不但侵害了当事人的实体利益和程序利益，而且也严重扰乱了诉讼程序的正常进行。因此，诸多国家均对实施证明妨碍的行为人课以不利的法律效果以示惩戒。此外，证明妨碍理论发展至今，学界也出现了关于证明妨碍法律效果的各种学说，主要有证明责任转换说、自由心证说、证明标准降低说、折中说、拟制自认说、推定主张成立说和强制措施说。也正因为法律效果是构建证明妨碍制度的关键环节，所以学者之间对此问题向有争执，众说纷纭。诉讼实务操作的多样化和诉讼理论见解的不统一导致关于证明妨碍制度法律效果的讨论由一元化走向多元化。换言之，证明妨碍制度法律效果的弹性化与类型化是日后发展的重要方向。因此，不宜采取划一性的方式制裁妨碍者，法院应当本着诚实信用原则，仔细斟酌妨碍者的主观心态、实施方式、可归责程度及被妨碍证据的重要性等因素，在结合其他证据的基础上采取自由心证的方式对事实作出认定。亦即，此时法院可以选择应当推定举证人的主张为真实、或者直接认定妨碍者拟制自认，或者针对该等事实降低证明标准，甚至在必要时转换证明责任，或者采取罚款、拘留或直接强制等强制措施。第五章系我国民事诉讼证明妨碍制度的构建。我国《民事诉讼法》第102条对于毁灭重要证据行为的惩处，从制裁的法律效果上看，对实施证明妨碍的行为人设置了司法上的强制制裁措施和刑事上的制裁措施，希望通过公法上的惩处来制止此类妨碍行为的发生。但是，仅仅从公法层面对证明妨碍行为予以规制是远远不够的，应当也从私法层面对受妨碍者予以救济。最髙人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》（以下简称《民事证据规定》）第75条规定："有证据证明一方当事人持有证据无正当理由拒不提供，如果对方当事人主张该证据的内容不利于证据持有人，可以推定该主张成立"。至此，在我国民事诉讼中一旦当事人或其他诉讼参与人实施了证明妨碍行为，人民法院既可以对其釆取公法层面的制裁，也可以采取私法层面的制裁，使其承担诉讼上的不利益。从而，我国的证明妨碍制度初步得以确立。但是，总体看来，我国目前关于证明妨碍制度的规定是十分粗浅的，这使得不论是实务界还是理论界对于该问题均尚未形成统一的认识，也引发了诸多关于证明妨碍问题的研讨和探索。不难看出，构建符合我国国情的民事诉讼证明妨碍制度己经成为当前急需解决的问题。首先，我国《民事诉讼法》应当规定证明妨碍制度的总则条款，作为处理证明妨碍行为的原则，为构筑证明妨碍规则提供总则指导，以弥补个别制度的不足和漏洞。其次，我国《民事诉讼法》应当建立和完善证据提出命令制度、鉴定勘验协助制度和当事人询问制度，并进而形成“证明妨碍制度总则条款、证据提出命令制度、鉴定勘验协助制度和当事人询问制度”四位一体的证明妨碍制度体系。更多还原

【Abstract】 In order to pursue the case real discovery and realize the goal of centralized trial,the civil procedure should give the opportunities and means to parties to collect thecase based evidence of judgment. To make this procedure protection given to asubstantive role，the parties should have the full right to collect evidence relevant tothe case for the actual attack and defense，otherwise procedure safeguards that wouldhave increased the risk of only limited form. Moreover, to further protect thedominant position of the parties, the procedure gives its balanced opportunity ofpursuit in questioning entity interests and procedure benefits involved in the dispute,and the parties badly need to obtain the evidence held by the other party or a thirdperson.However, with the social and economic conditions change, pollution, productliability and medical malpractice damages and other modern dispute are increasing, inits proceedings there is no shortage of evidence existing only in the hands of one partyor a third person, thus causing the other party proves difficultly. In order to implementthe principle of equality of arms in real terms between the parties and between theparties and the court, they should equally approach and commonly use the data relatedto the case claims as litigation materials, evidence materials and relevant legal andfactual information, so that on the one hand it has sufficient information as a basis toform appropriate referee, on the other hand it helps clients independently choosetreatment and resolution of disputes. In this context, the civil procedure law field ofspoliation of evidence system emerged. The one party who hinders the activities ofthe other party or a third person activities by the way of the implementation of thedestroying, concealing or refusing to submit proof of evidence etc.is given somecertain no interests. In order to eliminate the spoliation of evidence conduct and replyto the parties in legal status of essencial equality.The body of this thesis consists of five chapters:The first chapter is about the basis content of spoliation of evidence system In thecivil procedure and its legal basis. Our domestic scholars in general define spoliation of evidence relatively simple, a’nd they dont distinguish among spoliation of evidence,proof of prejudice and proving prejudice, they are in the same semantic use of thesewords. In reference to the usage by the scholars of Japan and the majority of ourdomestic scholars, this thesis adopts the phrase of spoliation of evidence. Spoliationof evidence system is that the party can attribute to the other party or a third person inor out of proceedings, intentional or negligent act or omission, resulting in his ov/nactions proving difficultly or impossibly, so the court decides on the assured fact tomake a beneficial adjustment system for the impeded parties. Furthermore, before ouranalysis of what elements of spoliation of evidence to meet its establishment and ofhow the court assesses spoliation of evidence conduct, we must firstly discuss whythere is spoliation of evidence system itself, that is its legal basis. Theorists whichhave discussed theory about legal basis of the spoliation of evidence system mainlyhave substantive law damage compensation obligation theory, theory of expectationof possibility, rule of thumb theory, against the civil procedure good faith doctrineprinciple theory, fair and sanctions theory and litigation together duty violatesdoctrine. However, legal basis of the spoliation of evidence system is not limited toone side, but inclusive. Although the above theories not independently explain legalbasis of the spoliation of evidence system, but the introductions of the theories are toprotect the evidence right of the parties. Therefore, the efficiency of litigation and thevalue of procedure is the goal of "protecting the evidence right", which constitutes thelegal basis of the spoliation of evidence system.The second chapter is about the spoliation of evidence system in the civilprocedure comparison inspection. German civil court deals with the spoliation ofevidence behaviors in civil procedure originated from the practice of the Court of theGerman Empire on November19，1887，the decision to create the German judicialpractice, the rules on the spoliation of evidence conduct to new insights. From thelegislative cases point of view, Germ’any "Civil Procedure Law" doesnt make generalregulation in the spoliation of evidence system, but in the form and legal effect of thedocumentary evidence, reconnaissance and interrogated parties part. Japanese "CivilProcedure Law" by its parent law Germany "CivilProcedure Law" in order to draw the blueprint, the same with its corresponding regulations. In the U.S., the wholesystem of legal norms makes highly negative evaluation on the spoliation of evidenceconduct. With the evolution of the historical development of American law, thequestion to the spoliation of evidence is originated from the law of evidence, butAmerican law for the regulation of the spoliation of evidence is not limited to thisareas, the law of evidence, to be treated. Accordance with its provisions, according tothe patterns and weight of the spoliation of evidence conduct, it may constitute acriminal offense, civil violations and acts of violating lawyers’ ethical norms. While inChina, Taiwan revised "Civil Procedure Law" in2000earlier than Germany andJapanese " Civil Procedure Law" regulation, adding to the general regulation of thespoliation of evidence system, which makes the spoliation of evidence system from afix in the field of individual provisions to the evidence area in civil procedure law ofgeneral theory. Moreover, with its echoing, the "Civil Procedure Law" presentedindividual regulations used in the field of documents putting forward its orders,inspection assistance obligations and asking the parties.The third chapter is about the spoliation of evidence system in civil procedureconstituents， It includes the subject element, the object element, the subjectiveelements and the objective elements. In terms of the subject element, whether theparties or a third person may constitute the main body, which includes the partiesholding and not holding the burden of evidence. Elements for the object, five kinds ofevidence such as documents, inspection materials, witnesses, parties and experts canbe proven method of obstruction of the object. Fault is the subjective element of thespoliation of evidence. Fault is a kind of psychological state that can be attributable tothe actors, manifested in two forms of intentional and negligent fault. The objectiveelements is relatively complex, which is subdivided into four aspects of time elements,the behavior elements, the result elements and causation elements. Elements in termsof time, whether pre-litigation or proceeding that may constitute the spoliation ofevidence conduct. The behavior elements, the acts and omissions may constitute thespoliation of evidence conduct. To the result elements，the parties shall prove unablyor prove difficultly and leave the facts of the case identified. In terms of causality, the spoliation of evidence conduct and the situation that the facts of the case is provedunably or difficultly should have a causal link.The fourth chapter is about the legal effect of the spoliation of evidence systemin the civil procedure. The spoliation of evidence conduct in the civil procedure leadsto the facts not identified, which not only goes against the entity and procedureinterests of the parties, but also seriously disturbs the normal conduct of the procedure.Therefore, many countries have punished the people who conduct the spoliation ofevidence in the civil procedure with adverse legal effect. In addition, with thespoliation of evidence theory developing so far, scholars have the various theoriesabout the legal effect of the spoliation of evidence, mainly including proofresponsibility conversion said, free heart card said, standards of proof reduce said,compromise said, implied admission said, presumption proposed establishment saidand compulsory measures said. It is because of the legal effect is the key to thespoliation of evidence system, then the scholars are divergent on this matter and put itto a hot dispute. That the diversity of the procedure practical operation and differenttheories about the spoliation of evidence system leads to a discussion about the legaleffect of the spoliation of evidence system turned from one side to diversification. Inother words, the type and flexibility of the legal effect of the spoliation of evidencesystem is an important direction for future development. Therefore, we’d better nottake a uniform approach to punish the obstructionist, and the court should adhere tothe principle of good faith doctrine, carefully considering the subjective mind of theobstructionist, the implementation methods, attributable to the extent and theimportance of the impeded evidence and so on, in combination with other evidencebased on the way to take free heart card for facts to make a determination. That is,when the court can choose to presume evidence of people’s claims to be true, ordirectly to identify the obstructionist’s implied admission, or to reduce the standard ofevidence for those facts, even when necessary to converse burden of evidence, or totake coercive measures, such as fine, detention and direct force.The fifth chapter is about the construction of the spoliation of evidence system inthe civil procedure. China’s "Civil Procedure Law" Article102punishes the destructive conduct of important evidence. From the legal effect of sanctions point ofview, setting mandatory judicial sanctions and criminal sanctions to punish theconductors is on the hope that through public law punishment to stop the occurrenceof such obstruction. However, only from the aspect of public law is not enough toregulate the conduct of the spoliation of evidence, and it should be from the privatelevel to relieve those affected by prejudice. Supreme People’s Court "On a Number ofProvisions of Evidence"(the following referred to as "the civil rules of evidence"),Article75states:"there is evidence to prove that one party concerned holds evidencewithout warrant refus, if the other party concerned claims that provide the contents ofthe evidence against the evidence holder, this claim may be inferred established."Thus，in our civil procedure if the parties or other participants in the implementationof the spoliation of evidence, the people’s court may adopt both aspects of the publiclaw sanctions and aspects of private law sanctions to make the conductors bear on theno interests. Thus，the spoliation of evidence system can be established. However, inthe whole view, China’s current the spoliation of evidence system is very shallow,which not only made the non-unified understanding between practitioners andtheoretical circles not yet formed, but also raised a lot of discussions and explorationson the issue of the spoliation of evidence. It is obvious that building the spoliation ofevidence system in line with our national conditions has become an urgent problem.Firstly, China’s "Civil Procedure Law" should provide general terms of the spoliationof evidence, as a principle to deal with the spoliation of evidence conduct, in order toprovide general guidance for constructing the spoliation of evidence system and tomake up for the shortcomings of individual system. Secondly, China’s "CivilProcedure Law" should establish and improve the command system of proposedevidence, system of expert inspection to help identify and the parties inquiry system,thus forming "general terms of the spoliation of evidence system, the commandsystem of proposed evidence, system of expert inspection to help identify and theparties inquiry system’1the four-in-one spoliation of evidence system.更多还原