On The Proof Standard Of Civil Litigation "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt"

The Interpretations on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China(hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law")issued and implemented by the Supreme Court in 2015.This judicial interpretation stipulates the statutory rules of China's civil litigation standard of proof from different levels and in different ways of expression.Article 108 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law clearly establishes "high probability" as the standard of proof for civil litigation in China,and Article 109 introduces "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" as the standard of proof for special facts to be proved.Although there are relatively clear regulations on the standard of civil litigation in the legislation,the author searches through a series of proof standard keywords on the judgment document online,and finds that the judge's use of the proof standard in civil judgment documents is rather confusing.At the bottom of the day,it is the judge's understanding of the terminology that proves the standard is confusing.At the same time,it is difficult to unify the understanding of the standard of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" in the civil litigation.The judge chooses to have the same understanding or different understanding as the standard of criminal prosecution,and at the same time gives a special understanding and application of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" in civil litigation.This paper will introduce the problem of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" in civil litigation,and analyze the problems and causes of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" in civil judicial interpretation.Firstly,"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is mixed with civil litigation and criminal litigation in standard of proof.The criminal procedure law rules exclude reasonable doubts.The reason is that the procuratorial organs has strong ability to collect evidence,while the parties to civil litigation have no "unequal confrontation."Secondly,the official explanation stated that the provision "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is due to the requirements of the civil substantive law,but in fact there is no need to improve the standard legal provisions for special pending facts in the rules of civil substantive law.Thirdly,in judicial practice,the judge does not have a clear and unified understanding of the "high probability","predominant evidence" and "obvious advantage",so that the application of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" to the facts stated in Article 109 is Ambiguity.Finally,the application of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" to special facts does not have any valid basis in the comparative law.In the United States,special facts are adopted as "clear and persuasive proof standards",and German adopts higher or lower standard of proof,but it is by no means a direct reference to the standard of proof of criminal proceedings.This paper argues that in the Chinese context,the standard of proof for special facts to be proved has its rationality,but in the civil litigation,"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" does not have the same identity as criminal litigation.In civil litigation,it is more to guide the referee.The function.In the larger sense,Article 109 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law emphasizes that the identification of such special facts that are more likely to cause doubts needs to be prudent in order to avoid the fact that the parties are questioned after the facts are identified,rather than distinguishing between emphasis and "high probability".The difference between proof standards.In order to promote the practical application of the "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" proof standard in civil litigation,it should also issue a guiding case involving the application of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" proof standards as soon as possible;at the same time improve the subjective initiative of the judge;strengthen the existing substantive law rules,Strengthen its operability.Finally,the author made a preliminary assumption about the multi-level standard of proof in China.