On The Practice Of The Time Limitation Of Proof And The Adjustment Of Legislation

The proof limitation system is an important part of evidence system, as well as a hot and difficult problem in civil procedure, which generally experienced three periods, including the period of presenting evidence at any time, the period of strictly and timely presenting evidence on the level of judicial interpretation, and the period of flexibly and timely presenting evidence on the level of legislation and judicial interpretation. However, due to the system of the body has different choice of the subject, and lack of relevant supporting system which led to the operation of judicial practice and the official texts of expression is always less consistent, so the article called this phenomenon as the deviate of practice from the legislation.This phenomenon from the judicial justice, challenge the authority and influence the efficiency of lawsuit and difficult to guarantee the litigation rights of the parties,to resolve or correct the deviation, the proof limitation system of evidence in this article, through defining the concept and value pursuit, in the perspective of system main body choice to analyze the changes of the proof limitation system of evidence practice deviates from the legislative process, and then based on the analysis of draw lessons from other countries on the basis of practice and proof limitation system of evidence legislation, arguing subjects the value goal of positioning, the system behavior and operation mechanism and so on what time of adjustment.This text consists of introduction, body, conclusion of three parts. Among them, the introduction part mainly stated in this paper, the topic research significance, research status at home and abroad and research methods, the conclusion is the main content of the entire article to generalize. Text consists of the following five components:The first part is an overview of the proof limitation system. Brief introduction of the definition of time limit of proof and the value of the time limit of proof. Refers to the proof limitation system in civil litigation, bear the burden of proof of the parties, shall be prescribed by law, the court within the time limit specified and agreed upon between the parties, the evidence to the court, within the time limit is not proof will bear certain legal consequence.The second part is that the change of practice and time limit system of evidence of legislation and problem analysis in our country,brings the topic of this article:the deviate of practice from the legislation.Originally in action method and formal method is consistent, in the text, but for the time limit system of evidence, due to the system of the body has different choice of the subject, and lack of relevant supporting system,which lead to inconsistent attitude toward this system in judicial practice, often appear in action method in the text, to some extent, deviating from the formal method, that "practice have deviated from the legislation" phenomenon. Then based on the perspective to analyze the choice of system of subject practice and the problem of deviation of legislation, the proof limitation system subject to think about and use the system to achieve different litigation, and thus lead to ought to be and the reality level different legal consequences.The third part expounds the scope of a typical country in practice and legislation of time limit system of evidence. This section examines the legislation and practice is the United States, Germany and Japan proof limit system. Typical evidence of loss of these three countries the right to limit applies proof system has a corresponding legal basis and institutional background as a support, to ensure that wears law in action is consistent with the official texts to some extent.The fourth part expounds the adjustment the proof limitation production practice and legislation of the road in our country.While the parties, judicial and legislation are not the same way of thinking leads to the expression of legislative and judicial practice is inconsistent, but the problem still resolved; in our case, a modern legal system must respond to the requirements of the legislator, but at this stage of the legislative provisions impossible solve all problems encountered illustrate an aspect of the transition period judiciary conform to modern needs, on the other hand have to deal with specific issues dispute, to achieve a just, so to face this departure from the phenomenon and propose solutions tentative measures to reduce this inconsistency.