不負證明責任當事人的事案解明義務

考察德國事案解明義務的實踐與理論可以發現，事案解明義務是解決民事訴訟資訊-證據偏在問題的有效手段；但德國聯邦最高法院和學界主流並未採納施蒂爾納宣導的一般性事案解明義務，而是將其限制在例外情形，即通過從屬的主張-證明責任來解決問題。考慮到事案解明義務的自身特點，引入該制度有助於解決我國民事訴訟證據調查的空洞化問題，也不會對辯論主義的確立造成重大衝擊。我國未來民事訴訟應在例外性事案解明義務的基礎上引入這一制度，同時將事案解明義務的設計和推進納入我國民事訴訟證明責任的制度體系，以免帶來意料之外的負面效應。

Practice and theory of the obligation to clarify in Germany indicates that it is an effective way to solve the problem of information and evidence asymmetry in civil procedure. However, the German Federal Supreme Court and the academic community have not adopted the general obligation to clarify proposed by Rolf Stürner. It is limited to exceptional cases in which the problem is solved by subordinate burden of allegation and proof. Taking into account the characteristics of the obligation to clarify, its introduction to China could help solve the problem of ineffectiveness of the evidence investigation, and will not shake the ground of establishing an adversary system in China’s civil procedure. China’s future civil procedure should introduce this system on the condition that the obligation to clarify is limited to exceptional cases. Meanwhile, incorporating the design and promotion of the obligation to clarify in the institution of burden of proof in China civil procedure would avoid unintended negative effects.