Consider Themselves The Effectiveness Of Behavior Theory Involving His Interests

In the civil lawsuits, judges firmly believe the facts of a case based upon the evidence obtained through the court hearings, and then make judgments according to relative laws. Thus, the evidence holds the balance throughout the whole process of a lawsuit. Because of the importance of evidence, the Supreme Court issued the Judiciary Explanations to the Guidance of Evidences in Civil Lawsuits, including an introductory guidance to the regulation of self-admission. This Guidance used to be practical in the lawsuit practice, but is apparently out of date and lacks of details particularly in the evidences associated with self-admission.The lacking of certain guidance to self-admission leads to different understanding among the local judges: some judges think that self-admission in the lawsuit has sanction to the court, and judges should be made based on this sanction; other judges completely deny the sanction of self-admission to the court. In the later situation, judges often request the other party to submit evidence to support the self-admission of one side. Sometime the judges may make a judgment totally opposite to the content of self-admission. This kind of judgment often gives a wrong impression to the involved parties that the judgment itself is unfair.In order to solve this issue, we believe, with the theme of now day's judgment as fairness and efficiency, it is necessary to establish integral and scientific rules of self-admission. This is also the requirement to establish a fair and efficient lawsuit procedure.First, it should be clarified that the reason to accept self-admission of one party in a lawsuit is because the evidence of self-admission is a stronger proof than other evidences. Self-admission is more adoptable than other evidences in the lawsuits. Self-admission completely pacifies the court dispute of the two parties in a lawsuit so that a judgment based on self-admission is more acceptable to both parties. In other words, self-admission is usually indisputable, voluntary and highly sincere. Because of this, the court may, without any further verification, directly indicate a statement as the facts or as direct evidence to the facts of a case based upon it is an absolutely disadvantageous self-admission.Second, it should be emphasized that the third-party interests-related self admission is a very serious legal action, and there certainly will be legal consequences (validity). The legal validity of third-party interests-related self-admission is based upon that of general self-admission because of their integral connections. The legal consequences of a self-admission, particularly if it involves third-party interests, should be analyzed based upon the content, basic interpretation, restriction and exclusion of its legal validity.Based upon the above, it should be always kept in mind that the function of judicature is to solve the disputation, to find the truth, and to carry out judiciary justice and righteousness. Thus, for those public interests or third party interests-related self-admission by one party, a judge may request further evidence from this party. In addition, the judge may also authorize to obtain any related evidence or use other methods in order to verify this self-admission. If in a case both parties agree with a statement that contradicts to the contents of other verifiable evidences or the obvious facts, this statement will not be considered as a truth by the court. If there are no other methods to verify the facts of a case, a judge may use his/her free mind to make a final decision to the facts. This final decision to the facts of a case should not be applied to other cases as evidence of facts.