Civil "new Evidence" Perfection,

Evidence is the core and foundation of civil litigation, and a sound proof system is the guarantee to achieve procedural justice and substantive justice. In 2001,'rules on evidence providing'established the rule of introducing evidence at proper time. The new evidence system is reasonable and essential as the exception of the proof invalidity system. But the limitation of new evidence is too stringent, in addition, the different choices and inconsistent understanding for substantive justice and procedural justice among judges, caused the judicial practice a more chaotic application of the new evidence. The judicial interpretations of the new evidence issued later widened the range of new evidence system, but the conflicts between the relevant provisions made judges more at a loss. From the actual case which reflect the problems of the new evidence system in the judicial system, this paper is endeavoring to improve our system to explore the new evidence on the base of drawing on the relevant provisions of other countries.In order to achieve both of fairness and efficiency, to maintain social harmony, we should further expand the scope of new evidence, combining with China's current situation and the legal operating environment, in the absence of relevant supporting systems such as comprehensive pre-trial procedures. The late evidence should be included in the scope of new evidence for parties who delayed unintentionally in the proceedings. It should be allowed in the procedure, while giving it necessary costs of the sanctions. But late proof delayed deliberately should get the sanction of loss right. The rule of the new evidence should be simple and clear, while the provisions of the new evidence standard requirements between various trial level should be coordinated, so that people can understand and grasp it easily, at the same time, judges can apply it accurately. This paper adopts the studying approaches of combining theory with realistic and comparative analysis. At first, I analyze the deficiencies and defects of our new evidence system. Then I analyze and compare the foreign legislative examples. At last I raised my individual points on reform and improvement of the system.This article has four parts. There are about 30,000 words except the preface and conclusion. The first part introduces the basic theory of the system of new evidence. Beginning with the scene where'new evidence'emerged, I introduced the concepts and features of new evidence, the origin of proof limitation system and new evidence arising from legal analysis. In the second part, I listed the relevant norms of new evidence and examined our current system of justice condition, then pointed out the inadequacies of our current system which need to be improved. In the third part, I compared the new evidence rules of the United States, Germany and Japan, finding out the deep reasons for the differences to provide more useful information for our new evidence system. The fourth part gives some suggestions to perfect the new evidence system. First we should widen the scope of new evidence, to achieve uniform standards and coherence between different trial levels. At last I proposed relative rules for the specific use of new evidence.