新訴訟資料釋明的理論證成及制度建構

以是否承認新訴訟資料釋明合法性為標準，釋明範圍理論存在寬鬆論與限縮論的爭議，集中表現為2019年《證據規定》第53條與《九民紀要》第36條的適用分歧。貌似對立的兩項規範其實存在統一解釋的空間。理論上需要明確，釋明制度是辯論主義的修正而非附庸，故釋明行為不必受辯論主義範圍限制。新訴訟資料釋明服務于法官中立原則的目的也即法的實現，也是我國以“本人訴訟”為主流之現實背景下的應然選擇。法官超越訴訟標的範圍的釋明已經得到了中外司法實務的一致認可，成為了促進糾紛集中解決的主要手段。釋明範圍與裁判效力範圍具有協同關係，所以需要通過法官釋明補足或證成裁判效力之正當性。鑒於此，新訴訟資料釋明可以納入法官釋明權範圍。為避免釋明範圍無限化，法官釋明對象應以當事人訴訟目的為限，並以間接事實、證據資料和法官職務上已知事實作為釋明依據。

The theoretical debate over the scope of judicial clarification centers on two competing approaches: the liberal and the restrictive. At the heart of this debate lies the question of whether judicial clarification may legitimately extend to new litigation materials. This divergence is most clearly reflected in the differing applications of Article 53 of the 2019 Evidence Rules and Article 36 of the Ninth Civil and Commercial Work Conference Minutes. Despite their apparent inconsistency, these provisions allow room for a unified and coherent interpretation. Conceptually, it is essential to recognize that judicial clarification constitutes a functional refinement of the principle of party presentation (Beibringungsgrundsatz), rather than a subordinate component of it. Accordingly, judicial clarification is not necessarily confined by the strict boundaries of party-driven submissions. The clarification of new litigation materials serves both the principle of judicial neutrality and the broader objective of realizing substantive justice. It also reflects a pragmatic institutional response to the reality of China's litigation landscape, where self-represented (pro se) parties remain prevalent. The practice of judicial clarification extending beyond the subject matter of claims (Streitgegenstand) has gained consistent acceptance in both Chinese and comparative legal practice, functioning as an important means to promote the efficient and concentrated resolution of disputes. Moreover, the scope of judicial clarification is inherently linked to the res judicata effect of judgments (Rechtskraft). clarification helps to supplement and substantiate the legitimacy of judicial decisions. Hence, clarification that introduces new litigation materials properly falls within the ambit of judicial clarification authority. To avoid excessive expansion of this power, however, judicial clarification should be limited to matters aligned with the parties' procedural objectives and should rely on indirect facts, available evidentiary materials, and facts subject to judicial notice.