The Study On The Problem Of The Withdrawal Of Admission

The legal effects of the withdrawal of admission are that the other party needs to bear theburden of the proof for admission in litigation activities and the court shall have noobligations according to the admission of facts to applicable laws and judgments if the otherparty does not provide evidences for the fact. In2012, the latest revision of the "People’sRepublic of China’s Civil Procedure Law" did not expressly provide for it and in2002onpage8of the Supreme Court of "Regulations on Civil Evidence" has involved. The articlemainly references to legislations of various countries (or regions) and some ideas of scholarshave discussed on the question and the author raises some doubts on specific provisions of thelaw on the issue seeking answers. In addition to the introduction, the paper is divided into thefollowing five parts:The first part mainly introduces the legislations of various countries (or regions) and someideas of scholars have discussed on the question and puts forward the main problems in thispaper according to the relevant provisions of existing legislation. Based on the differentdefinitions of the essence of admission, legal requirements of the withdrawal of admission arenot the same. Therefore, this part discusses the requirements of the withdrawal of admissionfirstly before the problem discussed specifically.The second part mainly discusses the legislations of various countries (or regions) andconsists of the following four parts: first, the consent of the other party; second, the "violationof truth" and "error"; third, the behavior of punishment of the third person to the Selfadmission shall be punished by criminal law; fourth, the problem of the withdrawal ofadmission by the entrust agents ad litem.The third part analyses the enlightenment of the withdrawal of admission to our country.On the premise of the theory with the concept of "notice", the view of author is consistentwith the Professor Tatsuo Ikeda. We should take self-responsibility and estoppel of the selfadmission as the core elements of the withdrawal of the considered admission, that is whetherthere is the possibility of a correct understanding of the objective situation or whether theother party who hold this trust accordingly lazy to collect or preserve evidences. This is thecore idea of this article. And it includes the following aspects specifically: first, whether is itto need additional constraint of the “made before the end of court debate” on “the consent of the other party”; secondly, whether there is a connection between “inconsistent with the factsand the great misunderstanding” and“in violation of truth and error”? In addition, whether it isreasonable if the "Regulations on Civil Evidence" considers it as a legal requirement? If civilsubstantive law considers "stress" and "fraud" as the statutory requirements to withdraw thecivil legal action, then whether "in violation of truth" and "fraud" can be used as one of theconditions for admission to withdraw? Thirdly, for the latter element, our country does notmention it and whether it is necessary to provide? Fourth, based on the provision of "thebehavior of punishment of the third person to the Self admission shall be punished bycriminal law" is too general, this paper describes it accordingly.The fourth part focuses on other issues of withdrawal of admission. For example, whetherthere is a logical contradiction in the provisions of the withdrawal of admission of the"Regulations on Civil Evidence", and the conflicts and coordination problems betweensection8and section74of the "Regulations on Civil Evidence".The fifth part mainly summarizes the withdrawal of admission discussed above statutoryrequirements according to the specific provisions on this subject in China and the problemswhich are based on the summary of the conditions of the withdrawal of admission ofvarious countries (or regions) in the judicial practice and some scholars what they insist.