—以 24 篇裁判文书为视角

杜闻

（中国政法大学民商法学院，北京100088）

【摘要】就最高人民法院颁布的“新民事证据规定”第 7 条而言，其所谓“有所限制或者附加条件”的自认是指广义的限制自认。广义的限制自认包括狭义限制自认及附条件自认两个组成部分。该两者的共性是：它们都与对方提出的主张一致且附加条件。与此同时，该两者的本质区别是：狭义限制自认的最终目的是否定对方提出的相关诉讼请求。而附条件自认则能使主审法官推导出另一涉案事实的成立。案例分析显示：我国法院对广义限制自认的解读存在着诸如误将间接否认识别为狭义限制自认等问题，值得引起规则制定者的注意。

【关键词】民事诉讼；限制自认；含义及类型解读；实证研究；司法实践

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2020）01-0100-13

Meanings, types and applications of restrictive self-admission in Chinese civil trials—From theperspective of analyzing twenty-four cases. Du Wen. Associate Professor of Civil, Commercial and EconomicLaw School, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088.

【Abstract】“Restrictive or conditional” self-admission in Article 7 of the newly adopted Civil EvidenceProvisions, promulgated by the Supreme People's Court, literally means restrictive self-admission in broad sense.Theoretically, restrictive self-admission in a broad sense includes two components: restrictive self-admission in anarrow sense and conditional self-admissions. The common part of these two components is: They are consistentwith the opponent’s proposition and also attach conditions. In the meanwhile, the essential difference between them–the ultimate purpose of restrictive self-admission in a narrow sense–is to deny the relevant claim made bythe opposite party. By comparison, conditional self-admission enables the trial judge to deduce the establishmentof another fact. The case analysis shows that the interpretation of the restrictive self-admission in a broad sensemade by Chinese courts has problems such as mistakenly identifying indirect denials as restrictive self-admission in a narrow sense, which deserves the attention of rule makers.

【Key Words】Civil litigations; Restrictive self-admission; Interpretation of meaning and types; Case analysis; Judicial practice