【作者】 刘辉；

【导师】 马龙； 方孝安；

【作者基本信息】 江西理工大学 ， 法律（法学）（专业学位）， 2025， 硕士

【摘要】 限制自认作为自认的一种特殊形态,对其的深入研究有助于厘清诉讼资料之于证据形式以及证明责任之于自由心证的关系,这对于快速压缩案件争议焦点,提高案件的审判效率具有重大意义。2019年年底最高人民法院发布的《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》,第一次在法律层面正式确立了限制自认的类型化样态,这标志着我国关于限制自认制度的立法空白得到了应有的弥补。但总体来看,我国限制自认制度设计尚有不足,未能在具体司法实践中起到良好的法律效果。本文通过探寻限制自认制度的深度内涵和构成要件,对我国在司法实践中适用限制自认出现的典型问题从制度的再设计和路径的重新建构这两个层面加以解决。最后,对法律移植背景的深入考察为我国限制自认制度的解构与重构提供了思路和完善方向。首先,对限制自认的基本概念和法理依据进行深入的探讨。其中对基本概念进行明晰和对表现形式进行分类,同时对与限制自认相似或近似概念进行辨析,为后续提出限制自认陷入错识现象这一问题提供理论基础。其次,对限制自认的构成要件进行细致探究,从适用客体、适用场域、“一致性”和“不利性”四个构成要件出发,其中对限制自认的适用客体和场域进行研究的目的在于为后续对限制自认的适用范围予以修正提供一定的理论基础来源,“一致性”要件则旨在说明限制自认与先行自认泾渭分明,“不利性”要件则意在促进限制自认与我国证明责任“规范说”体系的深度融合。再次,对我国司法实践中适用限制自认制度的案例进行评析,从中反思制度在本土化的过程中所出现的具体问题。这些具体问题主要归纳为四个:第一,限制自认的错识现象依旧;第二,自认的“非约束性”对限制自认存在不良影响;第三,限制自认被逐渐的“证言化”;第四,单一裁量化判定限制自认的模式存在弊病,应加以改造。最后,在结合域外经验的基础上对我国民事限制自认制度的本土化适用进行路径建构。对此应从以下四个方面加以入手:一是要对限制自认的类型化样态进行合理确认;二是在自认“非约束性”的影响下,对限制自认的适用对象和场域进行修正;三是在性质上和程序上进行优化,进而准确的区分诉讼资料和证据形式;四是为了进一步的厘清自由心证和证明责任之间的界限,理应确立裁量化和形式化并存的二元效力判定模式。更多还原

【Abstract】 The limitation on self-admission,as a special form of self-admission,requires in-depth research to clarify the relationship between litigation materials and the form of evidence,as well as the burden of proof and free evaluation of evidence.This is of great significance for quickly compressing the focal points of case disputes and improving the efficiency of case trials.At the end of 2019,the Supreme People’s Court released the"Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Civil Evidence",which formally established the types of limitation on self-admission on a legal level for the first time,marking a necessary compensation for the legislative gap regarding the system of limitation on self-admission in China.However,overall,the design of the limitation on self-admission system in our country still has shortcomings and has not achieved good legal effects in specific judicial practices.This article explores the deep connotation and elements of the limitation on self-admission system,addressing typical issues related to its application in judicial practice from two angles:redesigning the system and reconstructing the pathways.Finally,an in-depth examination of the context of legal transplantation provides ideas and directions for the deconstruction and reconstruction of our country’s limitation on self-admission system.First,a detailed discussion of the basic concept and legal basis of limitation on self-admission is conducted.This includes clarifying the basic concepts and classifying the forms of expression,as well as distinguishing between concepts similar to or analogous to limitation on self-admission,which provides a theoretical foundation for the subsequent issue of misrecognition phenomena in limitation on self-admission.Secondly,a detailed investigation into the elements of the limitation on self-admission is carried out,focusing on four components:the applicable subject,applicable field,’consistency’,and’disadvantage’.The purpose of studying the applicable subject and field of limitation on self-admission is to provide a theoretical basis for correcting the scope of its application;the’consistency’requirement aims to illustrate the clear distinction between limitation on self-admission and prior admission,while the’disadvantage’requirement is intended to promote the deep integration of limitation on self-admission with the’normative theory’system of burden of proof in China.Furthermore,this article evaluates cases of the limitation on self-admission system in China’s judicial practice,reflecting on specific issues that emerged during the localization process of this system.These specific issues can be summarized into four points:first,the phenomenon of misrecognition in limitation on self-admission still exists;second,the’non-binding nature’of admission negatively affects limitation on self-admission;third,limitation on self-admission is gradually being’transformed into testimony’;and fourth,the single discretionary judgment model for determining limitation on self-admission has flaws that require reform.Lastly,based on foreign experiences,a path to construct the localized application of China’s civil limitation on self-admission system is proposed.This should be approached from four aspects:one,reasonably confirming the types of limitation on self-admission;two,correcting the applicable objects and fields of limitation on self-admission under the influence of the’non-binding nature’of admission;three,optimizing both the nature and procedure,thus accurately distinguishing between litigation materials and forms of evidence;four,further clarifying the boundaries between free evaluation of evidence and burden of proof,it is necessary to establish a dual effectiveness judgment model that coexists with discretion and formality.更多还原