心证客观化视阈下间接证明模型的证成与应用 ——以医疗诉讼案件为演示样本

包氷鋒,杨雅淇 원광대학교 법학연구소 2018 의생명과학과 법 Vol.20 No.-

Different from the direct relationship between direct evidence and the main facts, the process of using the indirect evidence to determine the case facts is often complicated and complicated. It is also very easy that judges mix subjective and random factors under the process of the reconstruction of factual “fragment”. How to regulate the subjective arbitrariness in the application process of the rule of thumb and logical inference, how to prove the indirectness between indirect evidences and form a complete chain of evidence, which become difficult point of trial practice. At the same time, whether it is an indirect proof or a direct proof, it is a complete proof that the judge’s conviction of the facts should be sufficient to satisfy the judge. In this regard, how to evaluate the final proof the indirect proof to determine whether the proof standard is met, and how to clearly show the proof process to the party so that it convinced the judgment is also worthy of attention. Based on this, this paper proposes a medium to achieve heart Objectification -indirect proof model. On the one hand, It is to standardize the application of the rule of thumb, clarify the final presumptive power, and to make up for the lack of application of the evidence chain and the evidence loop, thereby maximally suppressing the subjective randomness of the fact-finding and standardizing the application of the indirect proof method; On the one hand, it provides the possibility for the parties to communicate with the court in time to ensure that the parties fully exercise their proof right. The indirect proof model can be roughly divided into four types: simple evidence loop, complex evidence chain, evidence loop and comprehensive type. Based on the concept clarification of various models and the prototype display, this article demonstrates how to perform module operations based on typical medical litigation cases appearing in practice. At the same time, it is indirectly proved that the maximal utility of the model requires the surrounding system—proof subject must be specific and necessary, the indirect facts and the main facts must be related, and the type of the rule of thumb should be perfected. Only the interaction of the various systems, Indirect proof that the model can be applied correctly. 不同于直接证据与主要事实所具有直接联系,利用间接证据认定案件事实的过程往往繁琐复杂,法官对事实“碎片”的重构也极易混杂主观随意性的因素。如何规制经验法则、逻辑推论在适用过程极易出现的主观臆断性,如何证成间接证据之间具有同向性并形成了完整的证据链条,成为审判实务的难点。同时,无论是间接证明,还是直接证明,均属于完全证明,即法官对事实的确信,均应足以令法官达到确信即可。对此,如何评估该间接证明的最终推定力进而判断是否达到证明标准,又如何将证明过程清晰地展示给当事人从而使其信服判决等问题同样值得关注。 据此,本文提出了实现心证客观化的介质——间接证明模型。一方面,以期借此使得经验法则的适用规范化、最终推定力明晰化以及弥补证据链、证据环的适用缺失,从而最大程度上抑制事实认定者的主观随意性,规范间接证明方式的适用;另一方面,为当事人与法院的及时交流沟通提供可能,以保证当事人充分行使其证明权。 间接证明模型可粗略分为简单证据环、复杂证据链、证据环以及综合型四种类型。在对各种模型进行概念明晰以及原型展示的基础上,本文以实务中出现的典型医疗诉讼案例为素材演示了如何进行模块操作。同时,间接证明模型最大效用的发挥尚需周边制度——证明主题须具体与必要、间接事实与主要事实须具有关联性、经验法则的类型化构建——的完善,只有各个制度的相互配合,间接证明模型才能得以正确适用。

论中国小额诉讼程序

包氷鋒,손한기 한국민사소송법학회 2018 민사소송 Vol.22 No.1

小额诉讼程序是中国2012年修改《民事诉讼法》时确立的一项诉讼制度, 2015年的司法解释又用13个条文也对其进行了细化的规定。本文旨在分析小 额诉讼程序发展脉络的基础上,探寻小额诉讼规定的由来和发展变化,并从 现有规定中发现存在的问题,从而针对问题提出完善的建议。 The small claim procedure is a litigation system established in the Civil Procedure Law (2012 Amendment). Then the judicial interpretation (2015) regulated 13 articles to detail it. On the basis of analyzing the development of the small claim procedure, this article attempts to explore the origin and changes of the rules of small claim, and to find problems from existing regulations, so as to put forward suggestions of perfection in a targeted way.

Investigation on the Current Situation of China's Internet Arbitration and Suggestions for its Perfection

包氷鋒,杨雅淇 한중법학회 2019 中國法硏究 Vol.39 No.-

In the present moment when the National Information Development strategy is constantly advancing, the state-dominated public resource model has gradually been transformed into a multi-subject model of public resources, social resources, market resources, etc. In the dispute resolution channel, litigation has also evolved into a mutually applicable mechanism of conciliation, mediation, arbitration and so on. In order to meet the diverse needs of the people for dispute resolution, the innovation and development of online arbitration is timely. Internet arbitration focuses on Internet business disputes and integrates the comprehensive use of electronic technology, big data, and cloud computing on the Internet platform to provide parties with convenient and efficient dispute resolution services. As a result, the “quantity” diversion of dispute cases is promoted, and the “quality” improvement of dispute resolution is realized. However, the promotion of Internet arbitration in China is not universal. It faces many obstacles, such as lack of arbitration consciousness, credit concepts and so on. The key to removing obstacles lies in the strong guarantee of law and the optimization of practical operation. Based on this, on the one hand, it is necessary to unify and perfect the overall framework of Internet arbitration through legislation, including perfecting the supporting legal system, establishing the online trust stamp system, and ensuring the service and enforcement of Internet arbitration awards. On the other hand, we need science and technology to help online platform systems and a flexible use of big data to handle case data, while standardizing the industry personnel and enhancing public awareness of arbitration. Only in this way can we effectively guarantee the effectiveness of the Internet arbitration system and promote the information development of the online arbitration institutions and the new dispute resolution mechanism.

직접증거와 간접증거의 구분 기준 연구

포빙봉,오이,선종수 한중법학회 2017 中國法硏究 Vol.32 No.-

직접증거와 간접증거는 오래되고 중요한 분류방법으로 여기며, 그것은 대륙법계에도 존재하고 영미법계에도 적용되고 있다. 국외 이론계는 직접증거와 간증거에 대한 구분 기준의 연구는 비교적 완비되어 있다. 중국 사법실무에서 직접증거와 간접증거에 관한 운용은 양적으로 광범위하게 존재하고 있으며 증명사실에 대한 명확한 인정은 중요한 작용을 하고 있지만 이론계 및 실무계는 그렇게 중요시하고 있지 않다. 따라서 이러한 중요한 의제에 관하여 깊이 있는 논의가 필요하다. 우선 중국의 직접증거와 간접증거에 대한 구분 기준 존재의 문제를 정리해야 한다. 이러한 기초에서 비교법 시각에서 국외의 이론 연구에 대한 분석을 하고 평가와 선택을 통하여 중국의 구분 기준에 대한 존재의 문제를 반성하고 구분 기준에 대한 이론적 난제를 밝힌다. 하나는 구분 기준을 영미법계의 추리방식에 따른 구분과 대륙법계가 아닌 대상의 구분을 채용하는 것과 유사하다. 두 번째는 법률 구성요건에서 어떤 요건이 명확하게 법률 평가성을 가지고 있고 직접증거가 이러한 사실요건에 대하여 증명할 경우 종종 증명할 수 없는 상황에 빠지게 되는 것이다. 따라서 중국의 직접증거와 간접증거에 대한 구분 기준의 정의는 “어지러운 세상을 바로잡아 정상으로 되돌려야”(발란반정, 拨乱反正) 하고 법률 구성요건에서 평가성 요건이 “주요사실”에서 벗어나야 하며 직접증거와 간접증거에 대한 구분 기준을 이론적으로 재구성해야 한다. Direct evidence and indirect evidence as an ancient and important classification method, which exists both in the civil law system and applicable to the Anglo-American law system, Foreign theory for direct evidence and indirect evidence of the standard of the study is also more perfect. In the judicial practice of our country, the use of direct evidence and indirect evidence is extensive and widespread, and it plays an important role in confirming the confirmation of the facts. However, the theoretical and practical circles have not paid enough attention to it. It is therefore necessary to explore this important issue. First of all, it should be in China to sum up the direct evidence and indirect evidence of the existence and the standard. On this basis, from the perspective of comparative analysis of foreign theoretical research, through screening and selection, so as to reflect the existence of China's standard. It is pointed out that the theoretical difficulty of dividing the standard in our country lies in the following: firstly, the division standard adopts the division of the method according to the reasoning way of the common law system, rather than the division of the civil law system. Second, some elements of the legal constituent elements have obvious Legal evaluation, so that direct evidence in the fact that these elements are often proved to be unable to prove the plight. So that direct evidence proves that these factual elements tend to fall into a difficult predicament. Therefore, the definition of the directive evidence and indirect evidence should be defined as “disregarding anyway”, and the evaluation elements in the legal factual elements should be stripped from the “main facts”, so that the criterion of direct and indirect evidence to carry out theoretical reconstruction. So that get the theoretical reconstruction for the direct evidence and indirect evidence of the division standard.