仅提供转账凭证的民间借贷的被告举证责任的承担问题研究

成果信息

DC信息

传播影响力

归属院系：

法学院

作者：

蒋颖

导师：

王斌

导师单位：

法学院

学位：

硕士

语种：

中文

关键词：

民间借贷;转账凭证;被告举证责任

摘要：

举证责任分配问题是民事诉讼理论界的一大难题，自然人的民间借贷，举证责任分配理论和实践困境的有机结合更是难上加难，这一问题在原告仅提供金融机构的转账凭证作为证明借贷关系成立的证据而起诉的案件中尤为突出。有鉴于此，最高人民法院制定了《最高人民法院关于审理民间借贷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》（以下简称《规定》）第16 条（此《规定》第16 条是2020 年12 月29 日修改前的第17 条）专门针对此类案件的举证责任分配问题作了规定，但是由于法律条文本身语言的抽象性和模糊性，学界对于被告承担举证责任的理由理解不一，尚有进一步论证的必要。故本文拟通过对仅提供转账凭证的民间借贷的举证责任分配司法适用现状梳理和分析，提出了被告承担举证责任合理性基础的核心论题，由此通过对学界现存观点的梳理、质疑、再识，在前人研究成果的基础上对事案解明义务肯定论的法理基础和程序流程进行进一步的论证和设计。本文分为四个部分，各部分内容主要概括如下：第一部分是问题的提出，即通过对仅提供转账凭证的民间借贷的举证责任分配的司法适用现状梳理和分析研究，提出了被告承担举证责任合理性基础的核心论题。具体言之，分为两个方面：1、通过对最高人民法院从2016 年到2020 年对《规定》第17 条（此《规定》第17 条是2020 年12 月29 日修改后的第16 条）的司法适用的梳理、对各级法院从2021 年1 月1 日到2021 年3 月1 日对《规定》第16 条的司法适用的梳理、对法条修订前后司法适用现状的对比分析，得知法条的修订仅仅只是法条措辞由“举证证明责任”改为了“举证责任”、法条编号由“第17 条”变为了“第16 条”，对司法适用现状不产生实质性的影响；2、在第一部分论证的基础上，以举证责任分配为视角，通过对第一部分梳理出的案件类型分析可知，被告既不是基于主观具体证明责任、又不是基于主观抽象证明责任而承担的举证责任，由此提出下文“被告承担举证责任合理性基础”的核心论题。第二部分是对被告承担举证责任合理性基础的解释进路的选择，即通过对现存学界观点的梳理提出笔者对此的质疑与再识。具体言之，分为四个部分，前三个部分是对学界现存观点事案解明义务肯定论、证明责任分配原则否定论、推定效力抵消搁置论的逐 2 一梳理，第四部分是提出笔者对前述三种观点的质疑及对“事案解明义务肯定论”的再识。第三部分是对被告承担事案解明义务的法理基础的阐释。通过论证附理由否认义务的功能以及其与事案解明义务的关系、证据偏在现象的弊端，提出被告承担事案解明义务的法理基础是附理由否认义务和对证据偏在现象的纠正。第四部分是对被告承担事案解明义务的具体设计。具体言之，分为两个部分。第一部分论证被告承担事案解明义务以原告主张已尽到具体化义务为前提条件，原告起诉主张在起诉、辩论不同阶段需满足不同程度的具体化要求，详言之，在起诉阶段，只需满足识别诉讼请求的要求即可，在辩论阶段，除了要满足一贯性审查的要求，原则上还要满足以盖然性占优为标准的盖然性审查要求，但是在被告辩称“还款”等实践性合同的场合除外。第二部分论证被告承担举证责任不能一概而论，还要考虑到其是否具有可期待性，即只有在具有可期待性的场合，被告才应承担举证责任。此外为了兼顾有效防止侵害被告合法权益的需求，也要考虑到例外情形予以特殊对待。

学科：

民商法学

提交日期：

2025-12-31

引用参考：

蒋颖. 仅提供转账凭证的民间借贷的被告举证责任的承担问题研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2021.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

dc.title
仅提供转账凭证的民间借贷的被告举证责任的承担问题研究

dc.contributor.schoolno
20170041021368

dc.contributor.author
蒋颖

dc.contributor.affiliation
法学院

dc.contributor.degree
硕士

dc.contributor.childdegree
法学硕士

dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
西南政法大学

dc.identifier.year
2021

dc.contributor.advisor
王斌

dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
法学院

dc.language.iso
中文

dc.subject
民间借贷;转账凭证;被告举证责任

dc.subject
private lending;transfer vouchers;defendant's burden of proof

dc.description.abstract
举证责任分配问题是民事诉讼理论界的一大难题，自然人的民间借贷，举证责任分配理论和实践困境的有机结合更是难上加难，这一问题在原告仅提供金融机构的转账凭证作为证明借贷关系成立的证据而起诉的案件中尤为突出。有鉴于此，最高人民法院制定了《最高人民法院关于审理民间借贷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》（以下简称《规定》）第16 条（此《规定》第16 条是2020 年12 月29 日修改前的第17 条）专门针对此类案件的举证责任分配问题作了规定，但是由于法律条文本身语言的抽象性和模糊性，学界对于被告承担举证责任的理由理解不一，尚有进一步论证的必要。故本文拟通过对仅提供转账凭证的民间借贷的举证责任分配司法适用现状梳理和分析，提出了被告承担举证责任合理性基础的核心论题，由此通过对学界现存观点的梳理、质疑、再识，在前人研究成果的基础上对事案解明义务肯定论的法理基础和程序流程进行进一步的论证和设计。本文分为四个部分，各部分内容主要概括如下：第一部分是问题的提出，即通过对仅提供转账凭证的民间借贷的举证责任分配的司法适用现状梳理和分析研究，提出了被告承担举证责任合理性基础的核心论题。具体言之，分为两个方面：1、通过对最高人民法院从2016 年到2020 年对《规定》第17 条（此《规定》第17 条是2020 年12 月29 日修改后的第16 条）的司法适用的梳理、对各级法院从2021 年1 月1 日到2021 年3 月1 日对《规定》第16 条的司法适用的梳理、对法条修订前后司法适用现状的对比分析，得知法条的修订仅仅只是法条措辞由“举证证明责任”改为了“举证责任”、法条编号由“第17 条”变为了“第16 条”，对司法适用现状不产生实质性的影响；2、在第一部分论证的基础上，以举证责任分配为视角，通过对第一部分梳理出的案件类型分析可知，被告既不是基于主观具体证明责任、又不是基于主观抽象证明责任而承担的举证责任，由此提出下文“被告承担举证责任合理性基础”的核心论题。第二部分是对被告承担举证责任合理性基础的解释进路的选择，即通过对现存学界观点的梳理提出笔者对此的质疑与再识。具体言之，分为四个部分，前三个部分是对学界现存观点事案解明义务肯定论、证明责任分配原则否定论、推定效力抵消搁置论的逐 2 一梳理，第四部分是提出笔者对前述三种观点的质疑及对“事案解明义务肯定论”的再识。第三部分是对被告承担事案解明义务的法理基础的阐释。通过论证附理由否认义务的功能以及其与事案解明义务的关系、证据偏在现象的弊端，提出被告承担事案解明义务的法理基础是附理由否认义务和对证据偏在现象的纠正。第四部分是对被告承担事案解明义务的具体设计。具体言之，分为两个部分。第一部分论证被告承担事案解明义务以原告主张已尽到具体化义务为前提条件，原告起诉主张在起诉、辩论不同阶段需满足不同程度的具体化要求，详言之，在起诉阶段，只需满足识别诉讼请求的要求即可，在辩论阶段，除了要满足一贯性审查的要求，原则上还要满足以盖然性占优为标准的盖然性审查要求，但是在被告辩称“还款”等实践性合同的场合除外。第二部分论证被告承担举证责任不能一概而论，还要考虑到其是否具有可期待性，即只有在具有可期待性的场合，被告才应承担举证责任。此外为了兼顾有效防止侵害被告合法权益的需求，也要考虑到例外情形予以特殊对待。

dc.description.abstract
The distribution of the burden of proof is a major problem in the theoretical field of civil litigation. The organic combination of natural persons’ private lending, the allocation of the burden of proof and the practical dilemma is even more difficult. This problem is that the plaintiff only provides the transfer certificate of the financial institution as proof. This is particularly prominent in cases prosecuted for evidence of the establishment of a lending relationship. In view of this, the Supreme People’s Court has formulated Article 16 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Loan Cases (hereinafter referred to as the Provisions) (Article 16 of the Provisions is dated December 29, 2020 Article 17 before the amendment) specifically addresses the distribution of the burden of proof in such cases. However, due to the abstraction and ambiguity of the language of the legal provisions, academics have different understandings of the defendant’s burden of proof, and there are still further arguments. Necessary. Therefore, this article intends to comb and analyze the current status of judicial application of the distribution of burden of proof for private loans that only provide transfer certificates, and put forward the core topic of the rationality of the defendant’s burden of proof. On the basis of previous research results, further demonstrate and design the legal basis and procedural flow of the affirmative theory of clarifying obligations. This article is divided into four parts, and the main contents of each part are summarized as follows: The first part is about the issue, that is, through combing and analyzing the status quo of the judicial application of the distribution of burden of proof for private loans that only provide transfer vouchers, it puts forward the core topic of the rational basis for the defendant to bear the burden of proof. Specifically, it can be divided into two aspects: 1. Approval of the Supreme People’s Court’s review of Article 17 of the Provisions from 2016 to 2020 (Article 17 of the Provisions is the 16th revised version of the Provisions on December 29, 2020). A review of the judicial application of Article 16 from January 1, 2021 to March 1, 2021, and a comparative analysis of the status of judicial application before and after the revision of the law. I learned that the amendment of the law is only the wording of the law is changed from "burden of proof" to the burden of proof, and the number of the law is changed from "Article 17" to "Article 16", which does not have a substantial impact on the status quo of judicial 4 application ; 2. On the basis of the first part of the argument, from the perspective of the distribution of the burden of proof, through the analysis of the types of cases sorted out in the first part, it can be seen that the defendant is neither based on the subjective specific burden of proof, nor is it based on the subjective abstract burden of proof. Liability, which puts forward the core thesis of "the rational basis for the defendant to bear the burden of proof" below. The second part is the choice of the interpretation approach to the rationality of the defendant's burden of proof, that is, the author's questioning and re-understanding of this through combing the existing academic viewpoints. Specifically, it is divided into four parts. The first three parts are the affirmative theory of clarifying the obligation of interpreting the existing viewpoints and cases in the academic circle, the negation of the principle of the distribution of the burden of proof, and the theory of presumptive effect offsetting shelving one by one. Questioning this view and re-understanding of the "affirmative theory of the obligation to clarify the case". The third part is the explanation of the legal basis of the defendant's obligation to clarify the case. By demonstrating the function of the obligation to deny the obligation with reasons, its relationship with the obligation to clarify the case, and the drawbacks of the phenomenon of evidence partiality, it is proposed that the legal basis of the defendant's obligation to clarify the case is to deny the obligation with reason and correct the phenomenon of evidence partiality. The fourth part is the procedural design of the defendant's obligation to clarify the case. Specifically, it is divided into two parts. The first part demonstrates that the defendant’s obligation to clarify the case is based on the premise that the plaintiff’s claim has been fulfilled. The plaintiff’s claim must meet different levels of specific requirements at different stages of prosecution and debate. In detail, at the stage of prosecution, only need to meet . It is sufficient to identify the requirements of litigation. In the debate stage, in addition to meeting the requirements of consistent review, in principle, the requirements of probabilistic review based on the criterion of probabilistic superiority should also be met. However, when the defendant argues that "repayment" and other practical contracts except for occasions. The second part of the argument that the defendant bears the burden of proof cannot be generalized, and we must also consider whether it is predictable, that is, the defendant should bear the burden of proof only in the circumstances where it is expected. In addition, in order to take into account the need to effectively prevent the infringement of the lawful rights and interests of the defendant, special treatment should also be taken into consideration of exceptional circumstances.

dc.date.issued
2025-12-31

西南政法大学机构知识库，欢迎您

仅提供转账凭证的民间借贷的被告举证责任的承担问题研究