間接證明之研究

Abstract

民事訴訟程序中，於證據提出與證據調查程序，負有舉證責任之一造，須對於訴訟之待證事實提出證據，藉由法院調查後，進行證據評價而認定待證事實是否存在。此一程序攸關訴訟之勝負，對於當事人而言，自具重要性。但因對於自由心證之研究有限，其中關於間接證明之理解，亦尚有部分操作方式未獲釐清之處，每每導致當事人對法院認事之疑慮，因而對於相關議題加以研究，自有實益。證據可分為直接證據及間接證據，前者可直接藉由法官就該證據之感官認識，進而認定直接事實即待證事實是否存在；然若直接證據不存在，此時即必須藉由間接證據，先行證明間接事實之存在，再以經驗法則及論理法則推論直接事實即待證事實之存否，此即為間接證明。間接證明與輔助事實不同，輔助事實係證明構成要件以外之事實；而其與表見證明是否有所區別，於德國學說亦有所爭論。另對於間接證明應用於實際訴訟中，由於間接證據僅得以證明間接事實之存在，而間接事實推論待證事實之過程中，須有法官經驗及論理法則之協助，對於如何間接證據、如何間接事實可為如何對於待證事實之推論，在理論及實務上均有所爭議。本文擬先提出抽象化證明模組，再輔以實務中較具爭議性之傷害保險及通姦事件之判決分析，勾稽實際案例中間接證明如何運作之圖像，祈能藉此建立間接證明之模組，以供參考。

In civil litigation, the party with the burden of proof has the responsibility to present evidence relevant to legal elements regarding disputed issues. Under the process of investigation and evaluation over the outset evidence, the judge will decide the case according to his (her) conviction on the existence of the fact in dispute. Such process is undoubtedly decisive to the outcome of the judgment and, therefore, vital to the parties concerned. However, due to very limited research in the free evaluation of evidence through inner conviction, and among which, the sketchy utilization of indirect proof, it is not surprising that inevitably doubts arise with judgments made by court. There are two kinds of evidence, direct and indirect. The former allows the judge inferring the fact to be determined directly and physically. When there is a lack of direct evidence, which is more common in real cases, it is so required to present indirect evidence to prove indirect fact, with which the fact to be determined may reasonably be inferred according to principles of logic and empirical rules. This essay intends to establish an abstract model of proof. By commenting on a number of controversial cases about accident insurance and adultery, it attempts to outline how to apply indirect proof in practice.