民事间接证据适用规则研究

间接证据作为民事诉讼常见的一种证据形式，其依据经验法则和推理构成间接证明方式，该方式是民事诉讼证明案件事实的主要手段。间接证据因为证明对象多元化、证明力不确定和证明事实方式复杂化，使得法院对其采取了谨慎、怀疑甚至是排斥的态度，法院对其运用或是简单滥用证据排除规则、证明力较小规则将其排除，或是以证据不能证明案件事实直接适用证明责任规则裁判定案，使得原本能够认定的事实得不到科学证明。因此，对于间接证据，首先应明确法院仅能依据宽松的证据能力制度对其作有限排除，同时应限制常识性的间接证据证明力较小和真实性规则滥用以及要求法院对矛盾间接证据证明力问题进行合理分析。更重要的是，在间接证明分为证据环、证据链等几种具体类型基础上，应明确间接证明对推定基础的经验法则之要求，确定间接证据证明案件事实的多样化模式，并且赋予间接证据在证明欺诈、胁迫等主观事实方面的重要作用。然后法院面对间接证据时才能依赖自由心证来认定事实，使民事裁判建立在规范、严谨的证据审查基础之上。

Research on the application rule of circumstantial evidence in civil litigation

As a common form of evidence in civil litigation, circumstantial evidence constitutes an indirect way of proof according to the rule of experience and reasoning, which is the main means of proving the facts of a case in civil litigation. Because of the diversification of the object of proof, the uncertainty of probative force and the complexity of the way of proving facts, the courts take a cautious, doubtful, and even exclusive attitude towards circumstantial evidence. The courts either simply exclude it by the exclusion rules of evidence or the rule of less probative force, or directly apply the rule of burden of proof to adjudicate cases with evidence that can''t prove the facts of the case. Therefore, for circumstantial evidence, we should first make it clear that it can only be limitedly excluded based on the credibility rules of evidence, the application of the less probative force rule on common-sense circumstantial evidence should be limited and the abuse of the authenticity rules should be concerned, and the courts should be required to reasonably analyze the problems of contradictory circumstantial evidence. More importantly, on the basis of the specific types of indirect proof, such as the mode of evidence ring and the mode of evidence chain, we should clarify the requirements of the empirical rules on the basis of presumption, determine the diversified mode of indirect proof of facts, and endow circumstantial evidence with the important role in proving subjective facts such as fraud and coercion. Then when the court faces circumstantial evidence, it can rely on discretional evaluation of evidence to determine the facts, which makes the civil judgment based on the normative and rigorous examination and identification of evidence.