舉證責任分配及舉證減輕之研究 ─以不當得利返還訴訟為探討中心

Abstract

本文主要係關於舉證責任分配、轉換與舉證減輕之研究，並以不當得利返還訴訟為中心進行探究。就舉證責任分配理論及原則，近年來新興之各式學說，其欲追求者，乃為維持當事人間之公平正義，僅於舉證責任之具體決定標準與方法上有所不同；又每項學說之內涵及原則均有其缺陷或不足之處，因而現代已不再提倡按照一定之原則來分配舉證責任。本文認為，宜採用「修正之規範說」為舉證責任之分配原則。再者，本文認同德國法上舉證責任、證據評價及證明標準之「分離原則」，對於舉證責任分配之法律問題，以及舉證減輕之事實問題，宜分開處理，不宜混為一談。\n\n同時，本文亦探討舉證責任之轉換與舉證減輕，基於上述之分離原則，本文認為，我國民事訴訟法第277條但書應解為舉證責任之轉換。此外，本文嘗試建構我國民事訴訟舉證責任分配、轉換與舉證減輕類型之體系，以舉證責任之分配為第一階層，其依據為民事訴訟法第277條本文。舉證責任之轉換為第二階層，其依據則為民事訴訟法第277條但書。舉證減輕則為第三階層，以表見證明、非負舉證責任一造當事人之事案解明義務、證明妨礙與證明度之降低作為舉證減輕之主要措施。上述第一階層與第二階層係法律問題，第三階層則為事實問題。\n\n最後，本文以向來最具爭議之不當得利返還訴訟之舉證責任分配為中心，於實體法上以非統一說為論述前提，並整理我國法上不當得利舉證責任分配之重要相關判決。同時亦介紹我國學說之見解，針對不當得利請求之舉證責任，所涉及無法律上原因是否要類型化處理或同構化處理、消極事實之證明問題，以及非負舉證責任之當事人事案解明義務等議題提出建議，期待本文能對於實務運作與未來相關議題之研討有所助益。

The thesis is mainly for the burden of proof, the shift of the burden of proof and the evidence facilitation, and it also focuses on the burden of proof in the litigations of unjust enrichment. As for the theories and principles of the burden of proof, various theories emerging in recent years, the pursuit of which is to maintain the fairness and justice between the parties. The differences only exist in the decisive criteria and the methodologies of the burden of proof. In addition, the content and the principles of each theory have its flaws or deficiencies. Thus, in modern times, most of the theories no longer put emphasis on the only principle to decide the burden of proof. In my opinion, it’s appropriate to adopt the “modified norm theory” as the principle of distribution of the burden of proof. Furthermore, I agree with the “separating principle” arising from Germany law which separates the burden of proof, the evaluation of the evidence and the degree of proof. The distribution of the burden of proof is a matter of law, and the evidence facilitation is a matter of fact, they are separate and independent issues, which should not be lumped together.\n\nThe thesis also focuses on the issues of the reverse burden of proof and the evidence facilitation. Based on the “separating principle”, this paper holds that the proviso of Article 277 of Civil Procedure Code in Taiwan should be interpreted as the shift of burden of proof. Moreover, in this paper I try to build the phase of the distribution of burden of proof, the shift of burden of proof and the evidence facilitation. The first phase is the distribution of the burden of proof, it is according to forepart of Article 277 of Civil Procedure Code. The second phase is the shift of burden of proof, it is according to the proviso of Article 277 of Civil Procedure Code. The evidence facilitation is the third phase, which is mainly composed of the prima facie evidence, the duty of the litigants without burden of proof to provide information, spoliation of evidence, low degree of proof. The first and second phase above are the matter of law, the third phase is the matter of fact.\n\nAt the last, the thesis focuses on the distribution of burden of proof in the litigation of unjust enrichment. Based on the premise of the “Principle of Separation” in the substantive law, in this paper, there are also the systematical lists of the court judgement and the theories argued in Taiwan concentrating on the distribution of burden of proof relating with no legitimate explanatory basis in the claims of unjust enrichment whether to make isostructural or typed processing or not, the matter of evidence about the negative fact and the duty of the litigants without burden of proof to provide information. I give some advice in the thesis. Last but not least, I look forward this paper to being beneficial for the practical operation and the study of the relevant topics.