訴訟時效中斷證明責任的中國表達

在大陸法系國家或地區，訴訟時效中斷的證明責任分配通常不是問題，但在我國理論界和實務界則分歧嚴重。權利人承擔訴訟時效中斷的證明責任，符合「規範說」的理論邏輯，符合《民訴法解釋》第91條的證明責任分配規則，也符合訴訟時效制度的激勵目標。反對「權利人承擔」而主張「義務人承擔」者，或者過高估計了權利人與義務人證明負擔的不均衡，或者因樸素道德而對義務人存有「偏見」，或者因時效期間過短而為權利人提供「優惠」，或者過度強調了權利人的證據意識不足問題。中國法上訴訟時效中斷證明責任分配的實踐及其爭議表明，對「規範說」和《民訴法解釋》第91條的準確理解與適用，仍然任重而道遠。隨著《民法典》的頒佈和實施，理論界與實務界協同關注證明責任和要件事實，以便促進《民法典》的精准實施，顯得尤為迫切和重要。

In countries or regions of civil law systems, the distribution of burden of proof for the interruption of limitation of action is usually not a problem, but there are serious different opinions between theoretical and practical circles in China. It is in line with the theoretical logic of the normative theory, the distribution rules of burden of proof in article 91 of Judicial Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law, and the incentive goal of limitation of action system to bear the burden of proof for the interruption of limitation of action by the right-holder. Those who argue against the bearing of burden of proof by the right-holder of and argue for the bearing by the duty-bearer either overestimate the imbalance of the burden of proof between the right-holder and the duty-bearer, or have ''prejudice'' against the duty-bearer because of the simple morality, or offer ''preferential treatment'' to the right-holder due to the short limitation period, or overemphasize the lack of evidence consciousness of the right-holder. The practice and controversy of the distribution of burden of proof for the interruption of limitation of action in Chinese law show that there is still a long way to go for the accurate understanding and application of the normative theory and article 91 of Judicial Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law. With the promulgation and implementation of the Civil Code, it is particularly urgent and important for theoretical and practical circles to coordinate to pay attention to the burden of proof and the facts of the elements, in order to promote the accurate implementation of the Civil Code.