The Study Of The Burden Of Proof In Anti-Monopoly Civil Action

The article firstly analyzes characteristic and distribution of the burden of proof in anti-monopoly civil action in China, and then makes analysis on the distribution of the burden of proof in anti-monopoly civil action between America and Japan and factors which affect that distribution, finding that the core problems are how to distribute the burden of proof between the plaintiff and the defendant and its theoretical evidence. The fourth chapters of this article finds the characteristics of the anti-monopoly law and the civil law in the monopoly civil case through the theoretical analysis on the distribution of the burden of proof in the monopoly civil case. In the distribution of the burden of proof, the general principle is suitable for the distribution rule of the burden of proof in the civil law, the special principle is the anti-competitor's compulsion information disclosure by the court and the evidence help of the public implementation organization to the victim.In particular, in the responsibility of the burden of proof existed in anti-monopoly civil action in China, anti-monopoly civil action is divided into two types, that is, the illegal action of monopoly agreement and the action of abuse of dominant market position in this article, making deep analysis on and exploring the distribution of the burden of proof between the plaintiff and the defendant related to the law, the theory of law and the typical cases.The illegal action of monopoly agreement has two parts:monopoly agreement according to the illegal indictment itself and monopoly agreement according to the reasonable principle indictment. If monopoly agreement is suitable for the illegal law itself, the burden of proof is undertaken not by the defendant but the only plaintiff. If monopoly agreement is suitable for the reasonable principles, the defendant has right to propose reasonable argument and the burden of the proof will shift between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, this article proposes that the burden of proof on monopoly agreement is not suitable to implement the responsibility inversion, but to try to find solution to strengthen the plaintiff's ability of the burden of the proof and to reduce the plaintiff's responsibility or to be suitable in the special rule of the anti-monopoly law.The action of abuse of dominant market position often make analysis through reasonable prinples. Firstly, the plaintiff presents the evidence to allege and then the defendant provides the evidence to make reasonable argument in order to show the equality of the distribution of the burden of proof and the correct implement of anti-monopoly civil action. This article supports the point that in the action of abuse of dominant market position, the inversion of the burden of proof is implemented, to the defendant's action of abuse,that is, the attempt to remove, limit the market competition, and monopolize the market as well as harm to the consumer benefit and so on. Finally, to improve the legislation of the burden of proof existed in anti-monopoly civil action in China, it is suggested that the monopoly civil public lawsuit system and the anti-monopoly civil evidence system.