June 4, 222 4: 38 Lawyer of Beijing Jinhong Law Firm.
Article 15 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "The people's court shall comprehensively and objectively examine the evidence according to the procedure, judge whether the evidence has probative force according to the rules of logical reasoning and daily life experience, and disclose the reasons and results of the judgment."
Article 88 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings stipulates that "a judge should comprehensively examine and judge all the evidence of a case from the aspects of the degree of correlation between the evidence and the facts of the case and the connection between the evidence".
The above provisions introduce the law of daily life into the legal provisions and become the fact-finding standard for judges to judge specific cases.
To sum up, the specific application of the rule of life experience in civil litigation can be divided into the following aspects:
First, the rule of inferring another fact according to known facts and daily life experience does not need to be proved by the parties.
Civil cases involve all aspects of people's lives, and social life is constantly changing. It is impossible for the law to exhaust all aspects of society and make uniform provisions. Article 93 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "The parties do not need to prove the following facts: (1) laws of nature and theorems and laws; (2) Well-known facts; (3) Facts presumed according to law; (4) another fact inferred from the known facts and the laws of daily life experience; (five) the facts confirmed by the legally effective judgment of the people's court; (six) the facts confirmed by the arbitration institution's effective award; (7) Facts proved by valid notarial documents.
Case 1 In the civil judgment of the Supreme People's Court (22) Minchuzi No.296, the Supreme People's Court believed that the former chairman of Al Company worked in Emerson Shenzhen Company from 1994 to 27, managed all the products of the company, was a core employee of the company, and had served as the legal representative. It can be seen that the core personnel of Al-Aar Company have contacted or may have contacted the technical drawings of Emerson Zhuhai Company involved. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it can be concluded that the patented technical scheme involved comes from the technical drawings of Emerson Shenzhen Company and is not developed by al Company. This case belongs to another fact inferred from the known facts and the laws of daily life experience.
Second, the "rule of life experience" and "reasonable explanation" are closely linked, which not only belongs to the burden of proof of the parties, but also is the standard for judges to judge the objectivity of evidence.
1. Most rules of life experience have the life logic of rational existence, otherwise it is not an objective fact.
in case 2, the Supreme People's Court (221) the Supreme People's Court No.243 civil ruling held that Li Feng confirmed that there was no relationship with Dahan Company.