日本民事訴前證據(jù)收集制度研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-11-22 17:41
【摘要】：2003年,日本進行了民事訴訟法改革。其中有一項重要的制度叫提訴前情報證據(jù)收集制度。所謂提訴前證據(jù)收集制度是依據(jù)1999年英國的沃爾夫改革所制定的訴前議定書制度、德國1991年的簡化司法程序法中導(dǎo)入的獨立證據(jù)調(diào)查程序以及2001年德國民事訴訟法改革中所導(dǎo)入的強制調(diào)解制度完成的。這個提訴預(yù)告通知制度是為了擴充證據(jù)收集手段，是由提訴預(yù)告通知制度、以此為前提的提訴前照會制度以及提訴前證據(jù)收集處分制度這三個制度組成。 本文首先，介紹了提訴預(yù)告通知制度的主要內(nèi)容。提訴預(yù)告通知制度是指欲提起訴訟的通知者向即將成為被告的被通知者，發(fā)出即將提起訴訟的通知。欲提起訴訟的當(dāng)事人以到手的資料為基礎(chǔ)來判斷是否提起訴訟。提訴前照會制度是指通知者在預(yù)告通知之日起4個月內(nèi)，對被通知者，為訴訟提起后的主張和立證做準備，可以就必要事項進行照會，可以規(guī)定期間，并要求書面答復(fù)。被通知者應(yīng)答預(yù)告通知之后，基于當(dāng)事人平等原則，也可以進提訴前照會。4個月的照會期間的起算點不是從應(yīng)答時算起，而是從預(yù)告通知發(fā)出時開始算起的。如果應(yīng)答延遲，那么可照會期間也會變短。這樣設(shè)置的目的為了促進應(yīng)答。提訴前的證據(jù)收集還有一種方法就是利用法院進行證據(jù)收集處分。這就是提訴前證據(jù)收集處分制度。通知者以及應(yīng)答者進行預(yù)告通知之后，欲提起訴訟所必要的立證證據(jù)是明確的的場合下，可以向法院申請證據(jù)收集處分。然后，欲起訴者也即通知者憑借手中的證據(jù)資料做出是否起訴的決斷。此時，到手的證據(jù)資料越多就越可能做出合理的判斷。如果根據(jù)這些證據(jù)做出不予起訴的判斷的話，就可以避免無用訴訟。如果決定起訴的話，當(dāng)事人就可以根據(jù)手中的充足的證據(jù)資料為審判做準備，以期達到迅捷審理的目的。這些對被通知者同樣適用。若他手中搜集到充足的證據(jù)資料，便可以做出是否應(yīng)訴的合理判斷。即使應(yīng)訴以后，必須收集的證據(jù)資料很少也可以達到審理迅速的目的。 其次，將與日本民事訴訟改正法所參照的德國法、英國法民事訴訟規(guī)則同日本的提訴前證據(jù)收集制度進行比較。日本提訴前情報證據(jù)收集制度同英國、德國法的制度設(shè)計的目的不同，日本的制度設(shè)計的目的是為了在訴訟提起后達到迅速審理的目的。 最后，討論了我國訴前證據(jù)保全制度的不足。最后立足于我國民事訴訟法證據(jù)收集的現(xiàn)狀，以日本提訴前證據(jù)收集制度為參考，對我國民事訴訟訴前證據(jù)收集制度的建設(shè)提出了一些建議。
[Abstract]:In 2003, Japan carried out a civil procedure law reform. There is an important system called pre-prosecution intelligence evidence collection system. The so-called pre-complaint evidence collection system is based on the pre-indictment protocol system established by the Wolfe Reform in the United Kingdom in 1999. The investigation procedure of independent evidence introduced in the simplified judicial procedure law in Germany in 1991 and the compulsory mediation system introduced in the reform of German civil procedure law in 2001. The system of notice of advance notice is to expand the means of collecting evidence. It is composed of three systems: the system of notice of advance notice, the system of pre-appeal note and the system of collecting and disposing of evidence before presentation. First of all, this paper introduces the main contents of notice system. Notice of action notice system means that the notifier who wishes to initiate an action sends out the notice of imminent action to the notifier who is about to become the defendant. The litigant who wishes to initiate an action is based on the available information to determine whether or not to initiate an action. The system of pre-complaint note refers to that the notifier, within 4 months from the date of notice, prepares the person notified for the claim and certificate after the lawsuit has been initiated, may carry out notes on necessary matters, may specify a period of time, and request a written reply. After the notified person responds to the notice, based on the principle of equality of the parties, he may also enter the pre-appeal note. The starting point of the four-month note period is calculated not from the time of the reply, but from the time of the notice of notice. If the response is delayed, the note period will also be shorter. The purpose of this setting is to facilitate response. Another way to collect evidence before bringing a complaint is to use the court to collect evidence. This is the system of evidence collection before prosecution. After the notice is given by the notifier and the Respondent, if the necessary evidential evidence is clear, the court may apply to the court for evidence collection. Then, the prosecutor, that is, the notifier, makes a decision whether to prosecute or not with the evidence in hand. At this point, the more evidence you have, the more likely you are to make a reasonable judgment. Useless litigation can be avoided if such evidence is used as a basis for non-prosecution. If a decision is made to prosecute, the person may prepare for the trial on the basis of sufficient evidentiary information in his possession, with a view to achieving a speedy trial. These also apply to the notified. If he gathers sufficient evidence in his hand, he can make a reasonable judgment as to whether or not to respond. Even after responding to the complaint, very little evidence must be collected for the purpose of speedy trial. Secondly, it compares the rules of civil action with the German law and the rules of civil procedure of English law and the system of collecting evidence before filing in Japan. The system of intelligence evidence collection before prosecution in Japan is different from that of England and Germany. The purpose of the system design in Japan is to reach the goal of prompt trial after the proceedings are initiated. Finally, the paper discusses the deficiency of our country's pre-litigation evidence preservation system. Finally, based on the current situation of evidence collection in China's civil procedure law, some suggestions are put forward for the construction of evidence collection system before litigation in China, based on the evidence collection system before filing suit in Japan.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D931.3;DD915.2
本文編號：2350091
[Abstract]:In 2003, Japan carried out a civil procedure law reform. There is an important system called pre-prosecution intelligence evidence collection system. The so-called pre-complaint evidence collection system is based on the pre-indictment protocol system established by the Wolfe Reform in the United Kingdom in 1999. The investigation procedure of independent evidence introduced in the simplified judicial procedure law in Germany in 1991 and the compulsory mediation system introduced in the reform of German civil procedure law in 2001. The system of notice of advance notice is to expand the means of collecting evidence. It is composed of three systems: the system of notice of advance notice, the system of pre-appeal note and the system of collecting and disposing of evidence before presentation. First of all, this paper introduces the main contents of notice system. Notice of action notice system means that the notifier who wishes to initiate an action sends out the notice of imminent action to the notifier who is about to become the defendant. The litigant who wishes to initiate an action is based on the available information to determine whether or not to initiate an action. The system of pre-complaint note refers to that the notifier, within 4 months from the date of notice, prepares the person notified for the claim and certificate after the lawsuit has been initiated, may carry out notes on necessary matters, may specify a period of time, and request a written reply. After the notified person responds to the notice, based on the principle of equality of the parties, he may also enter the pre-appeal note. The starting point of the four-month note period is calculated not from the time of the reply, but from the time of the notice of notice. If the response is delayed, the note period will also be shorter. The purpose of this setting is to facilitate response. Another way to collect evidence before bringing a complaint is to use the court to collect evidence. This is the system of evidence collection before prosecution. After the notice is given by the notifier and the Respondent, if the necessary evidential evidence is clear, the court may apply to the court for evidence collection. Then, the prosecutor, that is, the notifier, makes a decision whether to prosecute or not with the evidence in hand. At this point, the more evidence you have, the more likely you are to make a reasonable judgment. Useless litigation can be avoided if such evidence is used as a basis for non-prosecution. If a decision is made to prosecute, the person may prepare for the trial on the basis of sufficient evidentiary information in his possession, with a view to achieving a speedy trial. These also apply to the notified. If he gathers sufficient evidence in his hand, he can make a reasonable judgment as to whether or not to respond. Even after responding to the complaint, very little evidence must be collected for the purpose of speedy trial. Secondly, it compares the rules of civil action with the German law and the rules of civil procedure of English law and the system of collecting evidence before filing in Japan. The system of intelligence evidence collection before prosecution in Japan is different from that of England and Germany. The purpose of the system design in Japan is to reach the goal of prompt trial after the proceedings are initiated. Finally, the paper discusses the deficiency of our country's pre-litigation evidence preservation system. Finally, based on the current situation of evidence collection in China's civil procedure law, some suggestions are put forward for the construction of evidence collection system before litigation in China, based on the evidence collection system before filing suit in Japan.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D931.3;DD915.2
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條
1 章武生,張大海;論德國的起訴前強制調(diào)解制度[J];法商研究;2004年06期
2 和洪;論民事訴訟當(dāng)事人及其訴訟代理人的取證權(quán)[J];甘肅行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2004年03期
3 劉春梅;完善我國證據(jù)收集制度的若干思考——日本證據(jù)收集制度及啟示[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2001年06期
4 肖建華;石達理;;日本民事訴訟訴前證據(jù)收集制度研究及其借鑒[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年01期
5 唐力;;日本民事訴訟證據(jù)收集制度及其法理[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2007年02期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條
1 楊軍;民事證據(jù)收集制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2002年
2 薛顯侖;國外民事訴前證據(jù)收集制度研究及借鑒[D];蘇州大學(xué);2010年
，本文編號：2350091
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/falilunwen/2350091.html
