On False Self-Confession In Civil Litigation

The self-admission system has existed for nearly thirty years since its establishment in China,and is an important system in the provision of evidence.Because it is considered as exempt fact,it speeds up the litigation process and its respect for the space of private civil rights,and plays a pivotal role in China's civil litigation.Self-recognition refers to the expression of the intention of a party to acknowledge the unfavorable facts in the litigation process.The self-recognition system has a great impact on the parties.It is most appropriate to describe the self-recognition system with "single word wrong,losing a lawsuit".In recent years,the prevalence of false lawsuits,false self-admission has often become a means of false lawsuits,especially in civil lending disputes.In short,the concept of false self-admission means that in a lawsuit,one party may propose false facts that may be detrimental to the other party,and the other party knows and acknowledges it.On the basis of self-recognized theory,the adversary system is the source of its effectiveness.The parties put forward the facts and claims,the court cannot interfere,and the facts that are not disputed by the two parties shall be used as the basis for the judgment.However,under the circumstance that China's self-recognized operating environment is not mature,it is impossible to establish a self-recognition in the normative sense that binds parties and courts.Fully recognizing the effect of false self-admission is not in line with the current state of judicial practice in China and is not acceptable to legislators.China's "Civil Evidence Regulations" have undergone two revisions,but there are very few regulations involving false self-confession.In the judicial practice of our country,the parties violate the principle of good faith,deliberately refrain from arguing or knowingly to obtain improper benefits for knowing that the other party may have false facts.If we adhere to the effectiveness of adversary systems and restrain the court,the court will no longer investigate false facts,which will undoubtedly infringe on the interests of others.Therefore,how to regulate the false self-admission without depreciating the value of self-recognition is the key issuediscussed in this article.This article takes China's civil self-recognition system as the basis for research,and then analyzes the constituent elements,effectiveness,and adopts reasonable regulatory measures for false self-admission.First,in terms of the constituent elements of false self-admission,subjectively,the facts of the parties' self-recognition are not consistent with the facts found by the court.At this time,the subjective mental state of the self-recognized person needs to be considered.According to the subjective mentality,false self-confidence can be divided into different forms of expression,made with knowledge,made with involuntary will,and made with fault.The author considers it necessary to regulate the subjective and deliberate false self-confidence.From a subjective point of view,in the case of unwillingness,negligence,etc.,although false self-confidence may be made objectively.However,the author believes that the latter two situations are not subjectively attributable and should not be included in the category of false self-admission.First,it is necessary to determine the objective elements of self-recognition.The objective elements of self-recognition are the main objective facts.Indirect facts cannot establish false self-admission.In principle,the object of false self-confession is also limited to the main facts,and the false self-confession of indirect facts does not apply the self-recognition rule.The object of false self-confession is the main fact,which is in line with the principles of adversary system and the necessity of the judge's free testimony.Affirming indirect facts as the object of self-confidence will conflict with the free testimony of the judge.Therefore,it is reasonable to limit the object of self-recognition to the scope of the main facts.In addition,the false self-identified objects do not include the claims and the parties' claims.Inconsistent with "true facts",according to the standard theory of proof of civil litigation,"truth" should be interpreted as "objective truth".Secondly,through the analysis of legislative and theoretical circles on the determination of the effect of false self-admission,this article further explores the issue of the determination of the effect of false self-admission.The author believes that the determination of the validity of a false self-confidence is not inconsistent with the truth of the case.From the perspective of comparative law,strengthening the court's role in discovering case facts is a common development trend of the twomodern legal systems.Considering the requirements of discovering the real entity interests of the entity and the requirements of the other party's procedural interests,the author agrees with the view of negating the effectiveness of false self-admission.The author advocates establishing the principle of distinction in specific operations:matters that the court can investigate in accordance with its powers are not applicable to self-recognition,nor do they involve false self-admission;matters outside the court's power investigation are subject to legal proceedings.Check,even if it is not sure whether it is true,it should be affirmed that it has a self-recognized effect.By limiting the expansion of the court's scope of authority,the parties' right to decide on facts is guaranteed,so as not to return to the path of authoritarianism.Negating the effect of false self-admission does not change the division of labor between the court and the parties in obtaining evidence.The parties still have the right to decide the facts,and the court can only conduct trials within this scope.Fundamentally speaking,a complete denial of false self-admission will only devalue the value of self-recognition and make self-recognition lose its meaning.However,it is absolutely certain that the false self-identification is contrary to China's pursuit of real litigation.This article attempts to establish the principle of distinction,and proposes the principle of exception based on negating the effectiveness of false self-admission.Finally,on how to regulate false self-admission.The regulation of false self-admission in this article mainly includes two levels of significance.First,for what reasons to regulate,the author proposes three reasons.Secondly,how to regulate,the regulation of false self-admission throughout this article.The second and third chapters remove the conditions that do not constitute false self-admission from the constituent elements of false self-admission,and the effect of denying false self-admission in specific circumstances is regulated.However,in the fourth chapter of this article,it is mainly from the specific legislative and institutional design to put forward more operable regulatory measures,including both the legislative level and the specific system operation level.