Confirm That There Is No Debt V.

In our country, confirming the absence of debt action is a relatively new type of the negative confirmation suit. People’s knowledge and understanding of it is far less than that of the IPR non-infringement cases. Although it is under the appearance of “The villain brought suit against his victims”, the rights of the obligator should also be protected equally by the law. Due to the effect of the traditional litigation in China, the obligator confirming the absence of debt action, in most cases, does not have the right of claim according to the substantive law, bringing various difficulties for this kind of case to enter into scope of trial in practice. This thesis, led by the IPR non-infringement lawsuit at the beginning, points out the limitation and shortage of the research on confirming the absence of debt action. And then elaborates on the system value, the standard of interests of the litigation judgment, the lawsuit sum confirmation, allocation of the burden of proof and other issues. In the last part, the author brings forward some individual opinions, trying to provide some theoretical guidance for confirming the absence of debt action occurred in practice.This thesis contains about 26,000 words and consists of five parts, including the conclusion part.The first part is briefly introduces the current research of confirming the absence of debt action, its existing problems and the practical value of ending disputes, and the current research at home and abroad.Then is to elicit the topic after raising the problem of confirming the absence of debt action. Either one of the parties should be equally protected by the law. In practice, right-holders have been considered as protected objects for a long time and the protection of the obligators are often neglected. Because of lacking in sufficient theory on confirming the absence of debt action, how to handle such cases in practice becomes a problem for judges. In response for this, the author puts forward a series of solutions.The author gives a brief introduction to the historical development, system value, the current situation and problems of confirming the absence of debt action, expecting to have a basic understanding of confirming the absence of debt action from a macroscopic view. Firstly, starting from the negative confirmation, a broader concept of confirming the absence of debt action, the author expounds its historical development and the system value. Secondly, the author introduces the current research of confirming the absence of debt action and points out the existing predicament.The second part discusses the suit benefit of confirming the absence of debt action, which can be considered as the key to initiate judicial proceedings. It can be more crucial to tell whether proceedings can be initiated for confirming the absence of debt action without substantive right of claim. First of all, the author lays the foundation for suit benefit by pointing out that the legislative purpose of civil lawsuit is the determinant of suit benefit criteria. Secondly, the author briefly analyzes the concept and essence of suit benefit. And then, the judgment standards of suit benefit in practice are stated, from abstract to concrete.In the third part, the author makes an analysis on the lawsuit sum of confirming the absence of debt action and points out that the discussion on the lawsuit sum is necessary. Firstly, the plaintiff is clear about the lawsuit sum, the three kinds of written judgment that may exist in the court and the judgment documents writing. Secondly, if the plaintiff was not clear about the lawsuit sum, the lawsuit sum is mainly decided by the defendant’s negative interest claims. At last, owing to the inherent defects of confirming the absence of debt action, litigation fee can be charged according to the cases of property in order to reduce drawbacks due to system defects.The fouth part is the burden of proof of confirming the absence of debt action, the allocation of which can be a key factor deciding victory or failure of the lawsuit. At first, the author discusses the essential attribute of the burden of proof. Secondly, it is generally agreed that defendant to be responsible for the burden of proof when the standard of responsibility allocation is concerned. Under special circumstances, the plaintiff shoulder the responsibility for the obstacles to facts. At last, according to the nation’s first judicial logic of confirming the absence of debt action, behavior-based and final result-based burden of proof. If the plaintiff refused to put to the proof because of the adverse facts, he or she still needs to bear the final result-based burden. However, it is still a great challenge for judges as to how to allocate the final result-based burden of proof.The fifth part concludes the thesis by summarizing and reviewing the whole paper from a macroscopic view. It states the agreessivity inherent in confirming the absence of debt action and reemphasizes the reform and innovation of the allocation of the burden of proof.