【作者】 吴浩；

【导师】 唐永忠；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2022， 硕士

【摘要】 仅有转账凭证型民间借贷纠纷,即原告仅凭交付凭证而无借据等债权证据的情况下提起的民间借贷诉讼案件,处理该类案件最大的难题在于事实认定难,司法实践中,对于该类民间借贷纠纷的证明责任适用何种规范、如何进行责任分配的问题莫衷一是,甚至对于证明责任的内涵、作用亦存在误解,以致证明责任制度未能发挥其应有之价值。本文建立在证明责任的理论基础之上,主要采用案例分析法、比较研究法等方法,总结了我国仅有转账凭证型民间借贷纠纷的立法及司法现状,并归纳分析了一定数量的案例样本。研究发现:类案所面临的现实困境主要有三点,即原告仅提供转账凭证可否初步证明借贷关系的成立;被告对抗辩意见是否承担结果意义上的证明责任;被告就其答辩应该达到何种证明标准。但我国并未就民间借贷的证明责任分配规则形成统一的规范,而是散落在法律、司法解释以及各地高院出台的指导意见中,且这些规定本身尚存在一定程度上的冲突,因此,在多重规范并用的背景下,审理法官依据数种截然不同的裁判思路对类案作出裁判。而这种裁判思路的差异化主要是由于民间借贷案件本身的特殊性、法律术语使用不当、错误地处理了本证与反证的关系,以及不当的适用事实推定进而减轻了原告的证明责任所导致的。基于此,有必要在遵循“规范说”的理论共识下,从明确抗辩与否认的证明责任划分、区分本证与反证的证明标准、审慎适用经验法则等角度对仅有转账凭证之借贷事实的证明责任规则进行修正和完善。更多还原

【Abstract】 Only transfer voucher type private lending disputes are not individual cases in the current society.The biggest difficulty in dealing with such cases lies in how to determine that there are lending facts.As a result,there is still no consensus on how to prove the value of this kind of responsibility in the practice,and even how to deal with it.Based on the theory of burden of proof,this paper mainly adopts the methods of case analysis and comparative research,expounds the judicial status of private lending disputes with only transfer voucher in China,summarizes the current legislation around such disputes,and summarizes a certain number of case samples.The study found that the practical difficulties faced by such cases mainly include three points: whether the plaintiff can preliminarily prove the establishment of the loan relationship only by providing the transfer certificate;Whether the defendant bears the burden of proof in the sense of result against the defense opinion,and what standard of proof the defendant should meet in his defense.However,in terms of how to allocate the burden of proof of private lending,China has not yet achieved unified standardization in the rules for the allocation of the burden of proof.As for this,it is still scattered in the laws,relevant judicial interpretations and the guidance issued by local high courts,and these provisions still conflict to a certain extent.Therefore,under the background of the combination of multiple norms,The trial judge makes decisions on such cases according to several different judgment ideas.The difference of judgment ideas is mainly due to the particularity of private lending cases,improper use of legal terms,wrong handling of the relationship between this certificate and counter evidence,and improper application of factual presumption,which reduces the burden of proof of the plaintiff.Based on this,it is necessary to follow the theoretical consensus of "normative theory",amend the burden of proof rule of debit and credit facts with only transfer vouchers from the perspectives of clarifying the division of burden of proof of defense and denial,the standard of proof of distinguishing this certificate from counter evidence,and the prudent application of empirical rules,so as to promote the gradual improvement of the rule.更多还原