CAJ | 학술논문

我国民事庭审结构大致可分为法庭调查与法庭辩论前后两个阶段。在我国诉讼模式从职权主义转向辩论主义的情形下,这种以苏联为样本进行阶段性划分的庭审构造致使庭审各阶段功能重复与界限不清,并且在争点不明的情况下贸然进入证据调查容易肇致无的放矢等问题。观诸两大法系庭审设计,英美法系因陪审制而实行集中审理,故将审理分为审前和庭审两个阶段;又因采用证据分离主义,从而将事实主张与证据调查的功能分置于前述两个阶段。相反,大陆法系之德日由于采用口头审理方式之证据结合主义,因此诉讼程序整体上并未区别事实主张与证据调查两个阶段;又因实行辩论主义,从而将庭审区分为口头辩论与证据调查两个阶段以区别诉讼资料与证据资料。鉴于我国民事诉讼模式已经从职权主义转向辩论主义,加之采用并行审理方式,又因法律传统等因素,宜参照德日民事诉讼法庭审构造,对调我国现行庭审两阶段,激活法庭辩论并提高以争点为中心的法庭调查的效能。
아국민사정심결구대치가분위법정조사여법정변론전후량개계단。재아국소송모식종직권주의전향변론주의적정형하,저충이소련위양본진행계단성화분적정심구조치사정심각계단공능중복여계한불청,병차재쟁점불명적정황하무연진입증거조사용역조치무적방시등문제。관제량대법계정심설계,영미법계인배심제이실행집중심리,고장심리분위심전화정심량개계단;우인채용증거분리주의,종이장사실주장여증거조사적공능분치우전술량개계단。상반,대륙법계지덕일유우채용구두심리방식지증거결합주의,인차소송정서정체상병미구별사실주장여증거조사량개계단;우인실행변론주의,종이장정심구분위구두변론여증거조사량개계단이구별소송자료여증거자료。감우아국민사소송모식이경종직권주의전향변론주의,가지채용병행심리방식,우인법률전통등인소,의삼조덕일민사소송법정심구조,대조아국현행정심량계단,격활법정변론병제고이쟁점위중심적법정조사적효능。
The structure of civil court in China can be divided into court investigation and court debate. Under the transformation from inquisitorial system to adversary system, such stage-divided structure learnt from Soviet not only causes functional repetition and unclear boundary of the two parts, but also triggers inconsiderate evidence investigation without specific purposes. Seeing through the court design of the two legal systems, the common law system adopts central judgments resulting from the jury system, separating trial from pre-trial, and adopts evidence separatism to differentiate between fact assertion and evidence investigation corresponding to the two isolatedparts. The continental law system, on the other hand, adopts oral hearing and evidence corporatism from Germany and Japan, dividing trial into oral debate and evidence investigation to implement the adversary system and differentiate between litigation material and evidence material. Due to the fact that the pattern of the civil procedure law in China has transformed from inquisitorial system to adversary system, that the court in China adopts parallel trail, and that legal tradition cannot be ignored, China should learn from the structure of civil court of Germany and Japan, exchanging the order of the two stages under the premise of maintaining the contemporary stage-divided structure to activate court debate for the sake of improving the function of issue-centered court investigation.