China Civil Action To Prove The System Of Internal Relations

From the view of domestic and international theory, the author analyzed the burden of proof, the standards of proof and the evaluation of proof. The author thinks that they are near concern between the subjective beweislast and the objective beweislast, but they have different value function, and point to different targets. Actually, the judge would find out proofs of the case under the negative and neutral circumstance with subjective beweislast; the function of the subjective beweislast is to make the judge to discover the truth with conviction intimacy, the purpose of the subjective beweislast is avoiding the happening of unclear facts. In fact, the objective beweislast gives the judge a method of making a decision under the request of no refusing. In a deeper level, it is the path for the judge to escape the risk of making a mistaken decision.The author thinks that they are different between the evaluation of proof and the evaluation of evidence. The evaluation of proof is the judge's evaluation about the whole proof activities that treat discovery of the truth as their purpose. The evidence of evaluation is a conclusion from argumentative fact according to evaluation of the litigant's specific proof approach in the court. The meaning of the evaluation of proof contains the evaluation of evidence; and the activities for evaluation of evidence are a part of the evaluation of proof.When the author talks about the relation between the burden of proof and the evaluation of proof, the author thinks about the effect to the judge by subjective beweislast or objective beweislast. The subjective beweislast affects the judge's activities of evaluation of proof reflect on two sides. On one hand, it requests the litigants to provide the proof directly to the judge for discovering the truth, under the subjective beweislast responsibility allotment, and the purpose is making the judge's decision most nearly the truth. On the other hand, the subjective beweislast adds to the litigants responsibility to discover the truth, lighten the judge's burden to discover the truth directly, move the risk of the missing the truth from the judge to the litigants, and also reduce the judge's desire for discovering the truth. The objective beweislast also affect the judge's evaluation of proof on two sides. On one hand, the existence of the objective beweislast urges the litigants to perform the responsibility of subjective beweislast, in order to avoid the objective beweislast, and provide more proof for the judge to discover the truth, make the decision of the evaluation of proof close to the truth. On the other hand, the objective beweislast give the judge a method to make a decision when he doubt the facts are true or false, and make the judge escape from the puzzle. So, the rules of the objective beweislast, probably reduce the judge's desire for discovering the truth, then not to discover truth carefully under the evaluation of proof, or the judge may make a judgment only based on the puzzle of the facts was true or false.The author talks about the relation between the standards of proof and the evaluation of proof. The rules of standards of proof are more scenically, the judge's evaluation of proof would be more successfully, vice versa. The judge will decide whether the litigants' evidence is achieved the standard of proof, so the standard of proof guides the direction of the evaluation of proof. If the rules of standards of proof are practical, and easy to understood and held, the judge's activities about evaluation of proof are easy, vice versa.Because of the different constitution of the standards of proof, make the scope and standards of the litigants's evidence drifting, the lower standard of proof is, narrower and lower the scope and standards of the litigants's evidence is, vice versa.In the end, the author thinks about the cooperation of the burden of proof, the standards of proof and the evaluation of proof, in the area of civil procedure proof, through the system of lawmaking and the judicatory explain, the burden of proof, the standards of proof and the evaluation of proof are still not suitable.The author concerns two sides when we are building the system of proof, on one hand, we should consider the control of practice, and the system of proof should close to the judge's practice, on the other hand, we should control the judge's practice far away from the system of proof, so the objective system of proof should control the judge's subjective practice. On one hand, we should make the system more and more perfect, advanced, closed to the request of the reality; on the other hand, we should promote the judge's skill and political character, make the reality close to the system. In the end, the value of justice must be realized to be the fullest extend.