論民事訴訟爭點整理的實質化及其實現

經爭點整理形成的本案爭點在我國實踐中表現為“訴訟請求型”“爭點擴散型”等六種形態，其中呈現出“整理不足”“整理過度”“整理混亂”三重困境，這說明爭點整理實質化的欠缺。實質化的爭點整理以篩選待證事實和實現庭審中心為目的，以闡明訴訟關係為基本內容，並止於實體權利的實質判斷。爭點整理實質化的理論路徑分為以下三種:過程性思維區分爭點整理對象與本案爭點，強調過程性爭點到暫定性爭點的發展過程;體系化思維要求辨別主要爭點和非主要爭點，在厘清不同爭點權重和相互間關係上架構本案爭點體系;技術性思維下的爭點整理遵循要件事實論的方向指引，以當事人主體義務為動力來源，並通過法官訴訟指揮完成內容串聯。爭點整理實質化應圍繞訴訟標的的識別與特定、實體權利的有理性審查、舉證責任的分配、庭審事項的確定的“四步走”進行，最終在法官和當事人間形成爭點共識。

The issues formed through summarization during civil proceedings in China manifest in six forms, including“claim-oriented”and“issue-diffusion”types, reflecting three dilemmas:“insufficient summarization,”“excessive summarization,”and“disorganized summarization,”which highlight the lack of substantialization in issue summarization. Substantialized issue summarization aims to filter facts to be proven, take the court hearing as the center of civil proceedings, clarify litigation relationships, and make the judgment of substantive rights on the merits. The theoretical approaches to realizing this substantialization are threefold: first, the process-oriented thinking requires distinguishing between objects of summarization and summarized issues, and emphasizes the development from procedural issues to provisional issues; second, the systematic thinking requires identifying primary and secondary issues as well as structuring issues after clarifying the weight of and the relation between different issues; third, the technical thinking adheres to the theory of material facts, is driven by obligations of the parties, and relies on the case management power to integrate the content of issue summarization. The substantialization should follow a“four-step approach”: identification and specification of the subject matter of claims, plausibility examination of substantive rights, allocation of the burden of proof, and determination of trial matters, ultimately fostering consensus on issues between judges and parties.