摘要 《民间借贷规定》第17条针对欠缺借款合同案件的证明责任分配问题进行了具体规定,但通过对裁判文书的检索归纳发现,实践中法院对该条文的理解存在较大差异,进而造成裁判混乱。该条本为强调被告应积极提出反证,但条文的表述不当,使法官对抗辩与否认以及对应证明标准的辨析产生偏差,对证明责任的分配违背“规范说”的理论,故需对该条文予以修正。即明确原告提供转账凭证后,仍对借贷合意承担证明责任;被告提出转账系偿还其他债务的不是抗辩,而是附理由的否认,其承担的是主观上的证明责任;由此提出的是反证,需符合动摇法官内心确信的证明标准。 Article 17 of Private Lending Rules is a specific provision on the distribution of the burden of proof when the cases lack of loan contract.However,we can find that the courts have different understandings of this provision and causes confusion of the judgment in practice through searching and summarizing the judgment documents.The article is intended to emphasize that the defendant should actively provide evidence for the disproof.However,the judge deviate from the discrimination between the defense and denial as well as the standard of proof,and the distribution of the burden of proof violates the theory of"normative theory"because of the improper expression of the terms.Therefore,it needs to be revised.It is definite that the plaintiff should still bear the burden of proof on loan agreement and provide evidence after providing the transfer voucher.The defendant is not defensing but repudiating with reasons when proposing that the transferring is to repay other debts.The defendant should bear the subjective burden of adducing evidenceand the evidence proposed is the disproof,which needs to meet the proof standard that shakes the judge's inner conviction.
机构地区 西南政法大学法学院
出处 《乐山师范学院学报》 2021年第3期89-98,共10页 Journal of Leshan Normal University
关键词 民间借贷 转账凭证 证明责任分配 借贷合意 Private Lending Transfer Voucher Distribution of Burden of Proof Loan Agreement
