On The Proof Of Interrupt Of Negative Prescription For Requests

In accordance with Rosenberg's Rules theory,rights holders should suit the subject matter of the occurrence of interrupted bear the burden of proof. But in reality, people have the right to request the fact that it is difficult to prove. To change the allocation of the burden of proof will generate a new unfair, contrary to a balanced system of social relations limitation purposes. This is no statute of limitations rationalize the nature of the request entry into force of the elements, limitation liability and evidentiary standards to prove the relationship between the making. The paper proceed from the substantive law, through the suit and value system and understanding of concepts to explore how the rules of procedure should be established to achieve the limitation of legislative thrust interrupt system, Further argues that lower standard of proof in resolving the statute of limitations interrupt request of rights holders to prove the reasonableness of obstacles and feasibility.The paper is divided into four parts.Part I: Essence of civil law within the interrupt of limitation for request. First of all, through the limitation of the effectiveness of the object and the completion of the study, obtained substantial limitation as a dangerous burden on the rights of its object for the entity arising from claims. It then describes some limitation essence, a system is the balance of justice and efficiency, break system and the limitation of the rights of the general concepts and moral values consistent, where applicable, should be "a liberal interpretation." Further,the right to interrupt the proceedings so requests the limitation of entry into force of the elements analyzed. This section reveals the nature of the civil code of request, which means that the Intention. According to the classification as a dialogue with non-dialogue, respectively, of its effect to the elements described as "understanding" and "reach".Part II: the proof obstacles of request. In accordance with Rosenberg's Rules theory that regulate the allocation of the burden of proof, indicating the limitation of the right to interrupt the proceedings were the subject bear the burden of proof. Meaning of the civil code that entered into force combining elements of the analysis, refinement of the three elements of rights holders bear the burden of proof: against a certain person a certain debt of the request, the request occurred in the force of law. However, due to the level of social development, national awareness of weak evidence, leading to the above three elements of proof of financial difficulties. The evidence can not be demanding a national consciousness that can instantly improve the situation, the rules of evidence in the two systems, namely, the burden of proof and evidentiary standards to make the necessary adjustments to the legislative thrust is to achieve substantive law approach. To prove that an attempt to adjust the allocation of responsibilities appeared pale and weak, and even subvert the risk of substantive law. Theoretically need to introduce standards of proof of its right to make adjustments to resolve a request from the proof barrier.Part III: Settlement Mechanism to the proof obstacles of request. From the expected utility of the unequal arrangement of view, and at the request of rights holders in the proof of a lower standard of proof more reasonable. Resulting from the request proof of the effectiveness of barriers (the uneven distribution of evidence) and requests for proof of the contents of obstacles (due to a higher standard of proof to prove difficult) analysis of the different situations, combined with the fact that case discussion and reducing the standard of proof for the presumed probability of two excellent settlement mechanism。Part IV: Empirical Analysis and legislation related to comprehensive proposal. Combination of relevant cases, the use of testimony from witnesses, notarization proof, telephone request proof of angles to explore the lower standard of proof in right to interrupt the proceedings so requests proof of the limitation on the role and legislative recommendations for improvement.