Research On The System Of Civil Judicial Appraisal Expense

The continuous advancement of science and technology has far-reaching implications on the judicial field.More and more parties have initiated the appraisal process to safeguard the right to appeal and protect their legitimate rights and interests.Forensic identification refers to the appointment of an appraisal by an authorized appraisal agency to give professional advice on issues involving specialization.It can be said that the judicial appraisal conclusion is one of the statutory evidences,which plays an important role in clarifying the facts of the case and resolving the contradictions.With the continuous deepening of judicial reform,many urgent problems in the judicial field have gradually become the focus of attention,and the problems in the judicial identification system have gradually emerged.The "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees"(the following referred to as the "Measures")has been implemented so far,which regulates the subject and collection scope of litigationrelated expenses,reduces the fees charged by the courts and provides a clear legal basis for the collection and payment of litigation costs.However,there are few relevant provisions on the appraisal fee system,the relevant texts are vague,and there are even contradictions and coincidences in different laws,which poses certain challenges to clarify the nature of appraisal fees.The principle of “who advocates and who bears” in Article 12 of the Measures seems to provide a reference for the distribution rules of appraisal fees.In fact,the practices in practice are not the same.While we further explore the judicial appraisal system,we should also pay attention to the social functions carried by the legal system.By searching the relevant cases of the refereeing documents network,three common methods of burden of judicial appraisal expenses has been summarized in practice,and there are cases of “different judgments in the same case”,which seriously affects the credibility of the judiciary combined with the Measures.The relevant provisions of Articles 12 and 29 can be roughly improved into these aspects:First,the overlapping of relevant laws and regulations has made the scope of the appraisal expenses not clear enough,which has caused great troubles in the operation of the practice.Second,the responsibility for applying for identification under the framework of the certification responsibility is indistinguishable.Third,the principle of “who advocates and who bears” in Article 12 of the Measures does not meet the reasonable expectations of fairness and justice.Therefore,establishing a lawful and legal distribution rule is the proper meaning of establishing a judicial appraisal fee system.In addition,in view of the fact that the identification activities have two types according to the application and authority,it is rare to see the judges authority to initiate the appraisal,and the relevant laws and regulations are few,leaving the judges with a large space for free referees,and because of the judges.The professional knowledge and trial experience are uneven,which has impaired the authority of the judiciary to some extent.Therefore,in combination with the many difficulties faced by judicial practice,we should actively explore and improve the feasible path of the judicial identification fee system.Based on the litigation model of China’s authoritarianism and the judicial practice in China,the author uses the comparative analysis method to deeply explore the "expert witness" system represented by the British and American countries under the litigious mode,and the authoritarian litigation mode in Germany.The different "recognition" systems represented by Japan and Taiwan,compared with the current system of appraisal expenses in China has been further envisioned in the improvement of Article 12 of the Measures.The burden rules should be understood as a prepayment of litigation costs,ensuring the smooth progress of the identification activities,reducing the litigation costs and psychological pressure of the parties,and achieving better implementation.Social effects.It is also in line with the psychological expectations of the people that the losing party bears the rule of law that can be more in line with fairness and justice.At the same time,the types of cases that need to be identified will be typed,and the way in which the judges will start the appraisal according to their authority will be clarified,which will bring about the possibility of improving efficiency and saving judicial resources.Finally,improving the remedies of the parties and allocate the appraisal expenses in the main text would provide more procedural ways for the parties to protect the right to appeal and safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.