摘要
就我国理论界对法律推定概念的认识而言,现存三种概念观:一是宽泛地认可法律规定的推定为法律推定;二是将法律推定作为程序范畴内的事实认定方法;三是认为法律推定属于实体层面的立法问题。法律推定在语义上的多重指代,使对于其识别、类型、效力等具体问题的认识陷于难以调和的分歧。归根结底,不同的概念观源自比较法资源的继受差异,而法律推定的定位本需与一国的制度需求和理论体系相适配。在我国,考虑到立法与司法二分的体制要求,以及实体推定与程序推定二分的体系理性,故宜采纳实体概念观。应从立法目的出发,识别可推翻的法律推定和不可推翻的法律推定,并明确可推翻的法律推定本质为证明责任的倒置。
In China’s procedure theory,legal presumption can be interpreted from three aspects:first,it is a broad conceptual definition,which defines legal presumption as the presumption stipulated by law.Second,procedural conceptual opinion regards legal presumption as a method of fact determination.Third,substantive conceptual position understands legal presumption as distribution of burden of proof.The confusion of different conceptual interpretations results in different understandings on the identification,categories and effects of legal presumption in China.In the final analysis,different conceptions stem from the inheritance differences of comparative law resources,and the positioning of legal presumption should be adapted to a country’s institutional needs and theoretical system.So,in China,substantive presumption and procedural presumption should be strictly divided,legal presumption should be defined as substantive presumption,and the systematic construction of the concept should be adopted according to the substantive nature of legal presumption.The rebuttable or irrebuttable legal presumption can be identified from the legislative purpose,and the rebuttable legal presumption is essentially the inversion of the burden of proof.
出处
《法制与社会发展》
CSSCI
北大核心
2022年第4期88-102,共15页
Law and Social Development
基金
中国政法大学科研创新项目“纠纷解决新形势下的民事审判结构优化”(20ZFQ82006)
中国政法大学青年教师学术创新团队“对行为请求权的强制执行”(20CXTD06)的阶段性成果
关键词
法律推定
证明责任分配
实体推定
程序推定
事实推定
Legal Presumption
Distribution of Burden of Proof
Substantial Presumption
Procedural Presumption
Factual Presumption
作者简介
欧元捷,中国政法大学民商经济法学院副教授。
