A Study On The Interpretation Of The Obligations Of The Parties In Civil Litigation

The development of the judicial system has always been concerned about the improvement of the evidence system.With the emergence of modern litigation,the problem of “Partial evidence”has not only broken the balance of the parties’ evidence ability,but also become a stumbling block for the court to discover the truth and display its dispute settlement function,it restricts the realization of the aim of litigation.However,finding the truth is not always superior in value judgment.On the basis of guaranteeing the substantive rights of the parties,the court should take into account the procedural efficiency in order to achieve the balance between fairness and efficiency in the trial.The obligation of interpretation of a case is the product of consideration of both fairness and efficiency.Scholars in the continental law system put forward the theory of the clear obligation of the parties’ personal cases,which aims at restoring the equality of arms between the parties by making them bear the obligation of clear the facts of the cases under certain conditions.Germany is the cradle to give birth to the clear obligation of the litigant’s case,and the Japanese scholars have made it develop rapidly.On this basis,the jurists in Chinese Taiwan have further expanded the theoretical prospect.From the perspective of comparative law,this paper studies the present situation of the system in the common law system and the continental law system,combining with the relevant legal provisions of the obligation of interpretation of the parties’ personal cases in our country,this paper analyzes and summarizes the current situation of legislation and judicature,and draws lessons from the advanced experience in extraterritorial.The parties’ obligation to clarify the case is the obligation of both parties.Since the party who bears the burden of proof assumes the obligation to clarify the case,it has a natural motive,therefore,this article focuses on the non-burden of proof of the party’s interpretation of the case obligations.This article is divided into six chapters:The parties’ obligation to clarify the case is the obligation of both parties.Since the party who bears the burden of proof assumes the obligation to clarify the case,it has a natural motive,therefore,this article focuses on the non-burden of proof of the party’s interpretation of the case obligations.This article is divided into six chapters:The first chapter is the introduction,and this chapter is divided into four sections.The first section clarifies the background of the selected topic in the light of judicial practice,and discusses the significance of the study from both theoretical and practical aspects.The second section takes two perspectives,domestic and foreign,as the starting point,and sorts out the current status of the main research on the obligation to explain the case.The third section elaborates the main contents and the lineage of the paper,and explains the writing method with the specific contents of the paper.Section IV elaborates the innovation and shortcomings of this paper.The second chapter is the definition of the clear obligation of civil litigant’s case,which is divided into four sections.The first section begins with the concept of the clear obligation of the parties in civil litigation,and defines the connotation,scope and application object of the clear obligation.At the same time,the system concept is clarified by comparing the clear obligation of the civil litigant’s case with the argumentism,the claim responsibility and the burden of proof.The second section focuses on the argumentation of “Obligation theory”and “Responsibility theory”to clarify the view that the nature of the interpretation obligation belongs to “Obligation theory”.Section III through the “General”and“Exception”of the two types of exposition,to clarify the case of this exception to the interpretation of the obligations of the view.Section IV of this chapter summary of the above points of view of this paper were combed and explained.The third chapter is an exploration of the theoretical basis of the parties’ obligation to explain the case in civil litigation,which is divided into four sections.The first two sections analyze whether the principle of equality of arms and the principle of good faith can be used as the theoretical basis for exceptions to the duty to explain.The third section clarifies that it is difficult to find a suitable jurisprudential basis for the establishment of a generalized duty to explain in terms of both the relevant theory and the purpose of litigation,while the exceptional duty to explain can find support from the above-mentioned theories and has the possibility of institutional choice.The fourth chapter is a comparative study of the civil litigant’s interpretation obligation,which is divided into three sections.The first section introduces the evidence discovery system in common law system.The second section combs the theory and legislation of Germany,Japan and Chinese Taiwan in the Mainland law system.The third section compares the above,so as to provide reference for the improvement of the system in China.The fifth chapter is about the current situation and problems of the system of the party’s obligation of clarification in civil litigation.From the legislative status and problems,judicial status and problems were analyzed,combined with the civil law system and common law system existing system in-depth analysis and system reflection.The sixth chapter is to our country civil lawsuit litigant personnel case explanation explicit duty system consummation,this chapter altogether divides into two sections.The first section makes it clear that China should establish an exception to the interpretation of the case of the choice of the type of system.The second section puts forward the mode choice and the perfect system assumption of the construction of the clear obligations of the parties in civil litigation from four aspects: the constitutive elements,the applicable object,the boundary problem and the legal consequence.