The Research Of Fact-Finding

The process of civil adjudication is the process in which the judge applies the syllogism to the condition facts and renders the judgment. During this process, all case facts having something to do with controversies must be ascertained before the judge applies the law to the condition fact and renders the judgment. And only when the condition fact is ascertained correctly and timely can the quality of the judgment be guaranteed. This dissertation focuses on the theories concerning the core of fact-finding in civil procedure. Besides the preface and epilogue, this dissertation is divided into four parts:1,The content of the fact-finding. This part starts from fact,the fact is divided into three levels: the living fact, the case fact and the legal fact. From the viewpoint of procedure law, the legal fact is the fact filtered through evidential rules, procedural rules and substantive law. Because the fact is a kind of recurrence of history and is ascertained by the person who do not know before. Therefore, fact-finding has relativity and been influenced by lots of subjective and impersonal factors. Just because of relativity of fact-finding, attitude in fact is a rational decision between true finding and cognitive abilities hard to bear this burden. Indeed, the determination of the object of fact-finding is very complicated because the judgment of fact and the estimation of law can not divide clearly. There is unidentified situation in fact-finding, burden of proof can do its work at this time since the judge can't refuse judgment.2,The subject and the object of fact-finding. At the subject aspect, we can not ignore important functions of jury in judicial democracy. However, the survival of jury is a consideration of formalism, then, the rage of civil jury should be limited and universally professional judge is the fact-finder in civil procedure. We must focus on judgment mechanism of facts and prohibit abuse in power of the judge. At the object aspect, through analyzing and comparing the differences of objects between the two legal systems, we re-thinking scope of objects in our country.3,The standard and special method of fact-finding. At first, this part discussed the conception and characteristics of standard of proof. A subjective estimation exist in fact-finding, therefore, we should pursue a kind of balance between accelerating litigation and preventing abuse in litigation. And the standard of proof should carry out perfectly by social and legal resources. Meanwhile, three special circumstances in fact-finding, which are confessional fact, obvious fact and legal presumptive fact, exclude free proof of the judge and render the judgment according to the norm of law.4,The mode of fact-finding. Through investigating the mode of fact-finding in two legal systems, this part resolves the distribution of power and restriction among all party of litigation. After reflecting the mode of fact-finding in our country, reconstruction of fact-finding depend on the thought in cognitive of fact, the relationship of judge and fact-finder, confirmation of fact-finding.