可得利益賠償中的證明標準：從確定性規則回歸優勢證據規則

在可得利益損害賠償問題上；我國司法實踐多采“確定性”標準；常以“可得利益不具有確定性”為由；否定原告的損害賠償請求權。換言之；可得利益損害應當被證明到具有相當的確定性；原告的請求才能得到支持。此種證據法、程序法上的要求；與實體法上的因果關係、可預見性規則等迥然有別。不過；確定性規則在我國欠缺實定法依據；應予放棄;應回歸定有明文的優勢證據規則；進而放寬可得利益損失的證明標準。證明標準規則並非以三段論的方式適用；多種實質性的因素共同支配著法院對原告舉證是否達到證明標準的判斷。若可得利益損害的數額就其性質而言本就難以證明；則在確認損害事實已發生且原告已窮盡舉證手段時；應賦予法官酌定一定數額賠償的裁量權。

In its judicial practice concerning the issue of compensation for lost profits, China often adopts the“certainty”standard, commonly rejecting the plaintiff's right to compensation on the basis that the lost profits lack certainty. In other words, the damage to potential benefits must be proven to a considerable degree of certainty for the plaintiff's claim to be supported. This requirement in evidence and procedural law is distinctly different from the rules of causation and foreseeability in substantive law. However, the certainty rule lacks a basis in statutory law in China and should be abandoned in favor of returning to the clearly stipulated preponderance of evidence, thereby relaxing the proof standard for loss of lost profits. The application of the proof standard rule is not a matter of syllogism; a variety of substantive factors together govern the court's judgment on whether the plaintiff's evidence meets the proof standard. If the amount of damage to lost profits is inherently difficult to prove, then the judge should be given the discretion to determine the amount of compensation when the fact of damage is confirmed and the plaintiff has exhausted all means of proof.