The Execution And Improvement Of The Highly Probable Standard In China

The civil proof is the key composition of the civil procedural law, and the standard of proof is an important part of the proof system. After the "objectivity and factuality" standard took the leader place for a long time, the "highly probable" standard has finally been adopted as one kind of standard of proofs by our civil procedural law, which established by the 73^rd item of "Rules formulated by the Supreme People's Court on civil proof firstly.What're the advantages of the "highly probable" standard to the former "fact clarity, proof sufficiency" standard and why can the very "highly probable" standard be established as the civil proof standard of our country but not a lower one? In this paper, the practical significance of the "highly probable" standard has been illustrated by two cases.As one kind of the proof standards, the "highly probable" standard has been used into civil judgments frequently in recent years, accompanied with which aroused a lot of realistic problems. The process and effect of two relative judicial precedents have been compared with in this paper, whose utilities are to point out the problems existing in the execution process of the "highly probable" standard, and furthermore, the improvement of the execution of the standard has also been concerned.In chapter one of this paper, the inner meaning and characteristics of the standard of proof have been introduced firstly, and then some brief introduction and illustration of the "highly probable" standard in our country have been made.In chapter two, the practical significance of the "highly probable" standard has been demonstrated through two cases firstly, and then, by the comparison of the two cases, the problems existing in the execution process of the standard have been finding out.In chapter three, the improvements of the "highly probable" standard have been put forward; Firstly, the rules of the execution of the "highly probable" standard should be strictly observed by judges; secondly, the related measures of the system should also be improved.