{"id":185,"thumbnail":"https://jilailawyer.com//rails/active_storage/blobs/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBcTBDIiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--3ba49f8e7230f1d6331f69100912904eb352969c/23231.jpg","title_zh":"法人格否认之诉中证明责任转移的可行性","title_en":"The Feasibility of Proving the Transfer of the Burden in the Action of Denial of Legal Personality","content_zh":"\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e摘要\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e我国公司法人格否认之诉中证明责任的分配采取的是罗森贝克的规范说，即赋予原告全部证明责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e这种分配具有较强的可操作性，但在法人格否认之诉中却并不合理：原告调取证据的能力有限且证明责任过重，因而败诉率很高。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e法官们对此总结出了\u0026ldquo;证明责任转移\u0026rdquo;和\u0026ldquo;法院依申请调取证据\u0026rdquo;两条进路，本文支持前者，并尝试用证明责任分配理论、法和经济学原理来论证我国规范说的不合理性以及证明责任转移的可行性。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e关键词\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e证明责任转移；证明成本；错判损失；行为要件；初步证据。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e引言\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e我国《公司法》第20条第3款规定：\u0026ldquo;公司股东滥用公司法人独立地位和股东有限责任，逃避债务，严重损害公司债权人利益的，应当对公司债务承担连带责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e此条规定寥寥数语，从立法上正式地确立了我国的公司法人格否认制度的同时，并未对适用此规定的证明责任分配做出明确的表述。罗马法法谚有云：\u0026ldquo;证明责任是诉讼的脊梁。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e\u0026rdquo;可见证明责任分配对于否认法人格制度之诉的重要性。而所谓证明责任，即是指在作为裁判基础的某个事实真伪不明时，依照预先规定的裁判规范由当事人承担不利后果的一种负担。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[1]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e按照我国证明责任分配理论的通说，即罗森贝克的规范说，《公司法》是将人格否认之诉的举证责任都配置给了原告的：事实上《公司法》的规定采的是严格责任原则，若为过错责任原则，则合适的措辞应当是\u0026ldquo;公司股东借公司法人独立地位逃避债务，严重损害公司债权人利益的，应当对公司承担连带责任，但能够证明自己没有滥用法人独立地位的除外\u0026rdquo;。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[2]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e正因为原告负有全部的举证责任，因而在我国公司法人格否认案件证据规则的适用中，原告调取证据困难成为一大难题。债权人要求否认公司法人格，必须提供有力的关于股东滥用公司法人地位的证据，而这些关键性的证据例如股东对公司的控制程度、二者的财产混同情况以及关联交易情况等等均是由公司掌握的，公司多数情况下并不会配合原告的调查，因此原告因举证困难而败诉的几率很大。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e针对这一问题，朱慈蕴教授介绍了两种方案：一为\u0026ldquo;法院依申请取证进路\u0026rdquo;，即由法院依原告申请调取相关证据，但证明责任仍由原告承担；一为\u0026ldquo;证明责任转移进路\u0026rdquo;，原告只须提出初步证据，达到令法官产生对被告滥用公司法人地位的合理怀疑即可，随后的证明责任转移给被告，由其证明其不存在滥用情形，否则承担败诉风险。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e他的主张是完善法院依申请取证进路，原则上不采取证明责任进路而是例外适用。但本人认为采取证明责任转移进路是可行的，不应当作为例外适用。因此本文将试着在证明责任分配理论基础上，运用法和经济学的相关知识，论证责任转移进路的可行性，并说明证明责任转移的过程。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[1] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e张卫平：《证明责任概念解析》，载《郑州大学学报》（社会科学版）2000年第六期\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[2] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e朱慈蕴：《公司法人格否认制度理论与实践》，人民法院出版社2009年版，第151页\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e朱慈蕴：《公司法人格否认制度理论与实践》，人民法院出版社2009年版，第150页\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e一、原告承担全部证明责任的不合理性\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e罗森贝克的规范说认为，当事人应当对有利于自己的规范要件进行主张和举证，如主张权利存在，则应对权利产生的法律要件进行举证；否认权利存在，则应对妨碍权利的法律要件进行举证；主张权利消灭，则要对权利消灭的事实进行举证。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[1]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e此学说因其具有的可操作性强的特点而成为我国的通说。但实际上，权利产生与消亡等的边界并不明晰，一个事实，既可以是权利产生的要件，也可以是妨害权利或是权利消灭的要件，它在什么时间点发生了何种变化在实践中更是难以区分。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e就法人格否认之诉来说，股东的某些行为对债权人来说可能是妨害其权利的要件，而对于股东自身来说，可能就是其自身的权利，具体由谁来举证并不好把握，笼统地将其归结于其中一方的责任则是一种利益偏向\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;负有全部举证责任的一方证明成本过高。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e世纪之前流行于德国的\u0026ldquo;消极事实说\u0026rdquo;认为，主张消极事实的当事人不承担证明责任，因其相比于主张积极事实的当事人来说，一般证明成本更高。20世纪中期的\u0026ldquo;危险领域说\u0026rdquo;则主张，当事人在法律上或者事实上能支配的生活领域中的损害原因处于真伪不明的状态时，由被告负证明责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[2]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e具体到法人格否认之诉，原告为否定者，主张的是消极性的事实，本身证明的成本就更高；从另一方面来说，能够用于证明股东存在滥用公司法人格行为的关键性的证据均处于股东的掌控之中，这更是加大了原告举证的难度。因而从证明成本的因素上考虑，原告承担全部证明责任是不合理的。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e当然，原告承担全部的证明责任不合理并不意味着原告不须承担举证责任。根据相关的法条和司法解释，法人格否认案件大致应有四个方面的事实是需要予以证明的：\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e（1）股东存在滥用公司法人格的行为；\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e（2）该滥用行为严重侵害了债权人的利益；\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e（3）股东的前述行为与债权人权益受损有因果关系；\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e（4）股东实施前述行为时主观上有过错。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e这四个方面的事实又可以总结为三个要件，即主体要件、行为要件和结果要件。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e主体要件指存在滥权股东和受侵害的相对人；行为要件指股东实施了滥用公司法人格之行为；结果要件则指相对人是因控制股东的滥权行为而致损害。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[4]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e换言之，只有满足了这三个要件，才能够适用法人格否认制度。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e而这三个要件彼此间是相互独立的，这意味着对于以上事实的证明责任的分配实际上是可以根据此三个要件的特点进行的。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e民事诉讼中起诉的条件要求原告必须是与本案有直接利害关系的公民、法人和其他组织\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[5]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e，故而原告当然应当证明自己与本案的直接利害关系，并指出滥权股东，综上主体要件的举证责任应当由原告承担；而对于结果要件，原告为股东滥用公司法人格的受害人，其对于股东行为造成损失的过程和程度以及具体的金额等都是最为清楚的，故而结果要件的举证责任也可以由原告承担。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[6]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e三个要件里面有两个都因原告证明接近而可以由其承担证明责任，那剩下的一个行为要件该当如何？若是按照我国现有的通说，让原告承担全部的证明责任，这意味着原告也需要负担行为要件的举证责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e因此可以推定，如果原告对于行为要件的证明难度要高于被告，则应由被告负担此部分举证责任，同时也就说明，由原告承担全部的证明责任是不合理的。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e事实上由被告负担行为要件的证明责任主要是基于以下几点考虑。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e一、从证明距离角度看，股东有没有作出滥用公司法人地位的行为其本人是最为清楚的，并且如果其做出了该种行为则在行为时必然是千方百计地隐瞒债权人，关键性的证据也都隐藏起来不会轻易让人发现。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e而债权人并非公司内部人员，信息来源有限，很难搜集到足够的证据来证明股东存在滥权行为。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e因而相比于债权人获取股东违法行为证据的艰难，股东自己举证自己有没有该类行为来让法院评定则显得容易得多。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e二、从程序公正角度看，对于原告来说，收集证据的手段非常有限，常常只能够通过查阅公司明面上的登记档案资料获取信息，因为公司的内部资料根据公司法的规定只能由股东进行查询，公司是不会主动配合原告查阅证据的。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e原告固然可以向法院申请调取证据，但是在具体的司法实践中，法官常常在此方面较为保守，一般会以保持中立为由拒绝原告的申请。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e\u0026ldquo;这种情况相当于被告乃装甲车里的武装士兵，而原告则是单枪匹马的堂吉诃德，挥动长矛进行挑战，或者徒劳地在装甲车面前挥舞公司档案。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e被告负担证明责任，迫使被告从装甲车中爬出，与原告进行同等力量的对决。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[7]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e\u0026rdquo;被告负担行为要件的证明责任，是程序公正的必然要求。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e三、从诉讼效率的角度看，一方面原告举证在收集证据和资料方面需要耗费大量的时间和精力，而被告则更为方便快速；另一方面就错判的几率来说，由被告承担举证责任错判几率会小很多。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e原告举证常因证据不足而败诉，而若是被告没有滥用公司法人格的行为，则其自证有充分的证据自然无需担心，若其存在滥权行为，则其举证的内容多为自己圆谎，这样就容易露出破绽，便于法官判断。故而被告举证诉讼效率要高很多。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e综上三点，被告承担行为要件的证明责任，其可行性是远高于原告的，既有证明成本更低，诉讼效率更高又更有利于实现程序公平的方式，为何还要让原告肩负如此之重的举证责任呢？故而再次说明，原告承担全部举证责任是不合理的。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[1] [\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e德]莱奥Ÿ罗森贝克：《证明责任论》，庄敬华译，中国法制出版社2002年版，第13页\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[2] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e杨微波：《论公司法人格否认诉讼的证明责任分配》，载《经济法研究》2008年第7卷\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e朱慈蕴：《公司法人格否认制度理论与实践》，人民法院出版社2009年版，第161页\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[4] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e朱慈蕴：《论公司法人格否认法理的适用要件》，载《中外法学》1998年第5期\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[5] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e宋朝武主编：《民事诉讼法学》，厦门大学出版社2008年版，第285页\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[6] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e参见杨微波：《论公司法人格否认诉讼的证明责任分配》，载《经济法研究》2008年第7卷\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[7] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e杨微波：《论公司法人格否认诉讼的证明责任分配》，载《经济法研究》2008年第7卷，第345页\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e二、证明责任转移可行性的法和经济学分析\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e上述分析均是建立在证明责任分配理论分析的基础上，主要是以证明成本的大小、证据距离的远近为切入点对原告和被告承担证明责任优劣势进行比较，得出将证明责任全部分配给原告是不合理的。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e但是这仅仅是考虑了一小部分因素的分析结果，事实上影响证明责任分配的因素有很多，且最终的分配也是这些因素互相影响综合作用的结果，故而不能因为个别方面具有优势而直接下定论。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e朱慈蕴教授也考虑到这个问题，他由此提出了一个思路，即先将影响证明责任分配的因素一一列举出来，再将这些因素根据法经济学的原理予以分析整合，在此基础之上建立一个数学模型，最后尝试借助对此模型的分析得出结论。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e本人在此次分析中也采用朱慈蕴教授的这种建模方法，借助其模型来分析证明责任转移进路的可行性。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e从证据学的角度，影响证明责任合理分配的因素综合起来主要是三个：证明成本因素、错判损失因素以及概率因素。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e下面对这三个因素分别予以说明。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e（1）证明成本因素。证明成本即是实现举证责任所需要付出的人力、物力以及财力，而一般说来，证明成本较小的当事人应当承担证明责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e从经济学角度来看，当事人的证明成本可视为事故的预防成本。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e美国学者弗雷德曼对事故责任的解释为\u0026ldquo;能以较低成本避免事故但却没有这样做的一方当事人应当承担法律责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e\u0026rdquo;[1]也即证明成本较低的一方应当承担证明责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e（2）错判损失因素。案件事实真伪不明的情况下，法院可能会出现错判，而错判往往会对当事人造成损失。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e证明责任分配学说并未对这个因素加以过多的关注，但此因素确在影响证明责任分配的众多因素中占有重要的一席。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e单从法人格否认之诉的标的金额来看，似乎不论错判哪方，双方的损失都是等值的，因一方是应得而未得到的损失，另一方则是不应失去而失去的损失。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e然而根据经济学的边际效用原理，等值的资源在不同的主体那里会产生不同的效用。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e在汉斯Ÿ普维庭所列的22条实质性证据里，\u0026ldquo;宪法上地位\u0026rdquo;与边际效用原则相似，它主张因当事人被错判风险所侵犯的权利在宪法上的地位不同而在分配责任时予以区别对待。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e也就是说，\u0026ldquo;如果错误地剥夺A的财产只会损及A的财产权，而错误地剥夺B的财产将威胁到B的生存权，那么比较二者在宪法上的地位，应将证明责任分配给A，生存权因其在宪法上的优越地位理应受到优先保护。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e\u0026rdquo;[2]具体到公司法人格否认制度的司法适用实践中，需要考虑当事人的经济状况以及争议债权对其生存状况的影响力来具体分析错判对于双方损失的不同。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e（3）概率因素。概率因素对证明责任分配的影响主要表现为盖然性规则的运用。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e盖然性规则是指由于受到主观和客观上的条件限制，司法上要求法官就某一案件事实的认定依据庭审活动在对证据的调查、审判、判断之后形成相当程度上的内心确信的一种证明规则。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e其主张以事实盖然性的高低作为证明责任分配的标准：盖然性低，即法院认为该方当事人的主张为真的可能性小，则该方承担证明责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e将上述因素用数学的方式表示出来，则有以下命题：假设甲、乙分别为人格否认之诉的当事人，双方的证明成本为C1、C2，主张的事实为真的概率分别为P1、P2,实际错判损失分别为L1、L2。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e在不考虑任何其他影响因素的情况下，若C1\u0026lt;C2（公式1），则甲承担证明责任；在不考虑任何其他影响因素的情况下，若P1\u0026lt;P2（公式2），则甲承担证明责任；在不考虑任何其他影响因素的情况下，若L1\u0026lt;L2（公式3），则甲承担证明责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e有了以上的基本命题，即可开始建构针对证明责任分配的数学模型。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e首先根据经济学\u0026ldquo;要把损失分配给能以最低成本承担这种损失风险的一方\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3]\u0026rdquo;的原理，先行计算出预期错判损失成本。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e预期错判损失即为错判概率与实际错判损失的乘积，故可将公式2与公式3相乘，得到公式4:当P1L1\u0026lt;P2L2时，由甲承担证明责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e然后将公式1与公式4相加有：C1+P1L1\u0026lt;C2+P2L2（公式5）时，甲承担证明责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e此公式即为证明责任分配的基本模型，表明证明成本与预期错判成本之和较小的一方应该承担证明责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e此结论与意外事故法上的经济学原理完全吻合，美国学者卡拉布雷西做出的解释为：\u0026ldquo;意外事故法的主要功能是降低事故成本和事故避免成本的总量\u0026rdquo;。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[4]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e综上所述，公式5可以说是综合考虑了上述三个因素的影响，利用直接的分析得出的一个初步的法经济学模型。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e当然上述公式建立的证明责任分配模型只是一个由3个简单命题初步进行简单的分析而得出的理论上的纯数学标准模型，而事实上证明责任的分配并非是如此简单的数字线性叠加。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e有一个必须要考虑到的问题就是，公式1和公式4能否直接相加？每一个公式背后都代表着一种社会利益的衡量，在甲、乙之间固然可以就同质的因素进行大小之分，但是不同的因素间却无法如此。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e公式1和公式4的直接相加实际上是建立在两个公式同等重要的基础上的，而各个因素都有其不同的复杂的社会影响，影响不同其价值也就有了轻重之别，因而前面所建立的证明责任分配模型实际上是忽略了某一个公式具有的优先于其他因素的可能。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e因而为了完善模型，必须确定两个公式究竟哪一个具有优先性，其对整个的证明责任分配过程的重要程度几何。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e李浩教授认为：\u0026ldquo;在诸价值发生冲突时，虽已无法做到面面俱到，必须牺牲这项或那项价值，但在优先选择某一价值的同时，兼顾其他一两项价值是完全可能的。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[5]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e\u0026rdquo;也就是说，前述公式仍有改良余地，可以在某一公式具有优先地位的情况下，设置不同的价值比例再进行比较。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e此处可以为在各项公示前安排一个权重系数，系数的大小代表着各因素在证明责任分配中占有的地位高低、影响力大小。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e则此时可以得到一个新的分配模型：当XC1+YP1L1\u0026lt;XC2+YP2L2（公式6）时，由甲方承担证明责任{X、Y \u0026isin;（0，1），X+Y=1，二者分别表示各项在证明责任分配中的价值地位}。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e再将公式6具体适用到法人格否认制度中行为要件的证明责任分配去具体考虑系数问题。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e就证明成本来说，显然原告的证明成本是更高的，即C1\u0026gt;C2，关于这一点前面已经论述。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e错判损失上则值得推敲。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e从实际的错判损失看，二者对于争议债权的损失的数额是相同的，问题在于此争议债权对于双方当事人的经济状况和生存状况的影响力。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e这个问题并没有办法简单的得出结论，因为债权人可能因权利被侵犯而受到的具体损失如何以及双方的经济状况如何，都取决于案件的不同情况，而所谓模型，即是一个抽象出来的具有一定范围普遍适用意义的公式，因此不能局限于具体的层面。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e其实依我之见，此处的实际错判损失应当从宏观的方向来分析。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e虽然争议债权的数额是固定的，但是否认公司法人格的适用除了对公司本身造成损害以外，还有对公司股东承担有限责任的原则的制度价值的损害。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e因而事实上在宏观层面，L1\u0026lt;L2。然后是概率因素。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e因概率因素缺乏有效的素材支撑，所以朱慈蕴教授在书中暂时不予考虑。最后是权重设计上，虽然原告可以申请法院调取证据，但是在我国的司法实践中这种方式的采用率很低，因法官大都采取观望的态度，所以原告的证明成本很难下降。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e而对于错判的损失则非如此，其建立在法官错判的基础之上，这意味着可以通过法官的严谨司法来加以控制，而在我国，法官对于法人格否认的适用已经是慎之又慎的，可以说就算要错判，也更多的是对债权人的错判，因而就错判损失来说，应当赋予其更小的权重，即X\u0026gt;Y。又因为X对于C值的放大效应，所以当C1=L1,C2=L2时，则根据公式6有XC1+YP1L1\u0026gt;XC2+YP2L2，即应由被告承担证明责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e而如果由被告承担行为要件的举证责任，在第一部分的内容中也已经论述，被告的主张为真或为假的概率实际上是相等的，这就意味着P1=P2，并且此时的错判率和证明成本因为被告的证明能力较强而降低，也就使得XC2+YP2L2的数值不断减小。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e故而从以上经济学模型的分析可知，证明责任转移进路在法人格否认制度中的适用中是可行的，而不应该只作为一种例外适用于一人公司的情况。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[6]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e对上述模型的质疑还有一个，即影响民事证明责任分配的因素有很多，至少绝不限于三个，而此模型却是仅仅考虑了这三个因素，并且做了诸多假设，因而分析结构过于理想化了，是与复杂的司法实践完全脱节了的。但实际上并非如此。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e虽然仅仅只有三个因素，但这三个因素的选取是建立在充足的理论依据和经验总结之上的，并且作为证明责任分配的实质性证据在各种学说、理论以及司法实践中都具有重大的影响力，而非其他作为少数情况出现的因素所能比拟的。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e经济学的方法本身就不能够将所有因素都囊括考虑，而是选取主要的重大的因素来加以研究，从而得出一个比较可靠的结论。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e对民事证明责任分配的经济学分析也是同样，不能眉毛胡子一把抓，而是要有重点地选取。再者，如果我们把所有的可能因素都加以考虑和分析，则自己首先就会陷入混沌的状态\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;\u0026ldquo;法律的经济学不可能把握他试图阐明的整个现象的全部复杂性、丰富性和混乱性\u0026rdquo;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[7]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e因此，上述模型以证明成本因素、错判损失因素和概率因素作为参数建立数学模型，并非是违背真实、脱离实践，而是建立在实践与经验基础上的一种重点分析方法，是相比于全盘考虑来说更为有效和更具科学性的分析。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[1] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e胡平：《民事证明责任分配的经济学分析》，西南政法大学硕士论文，第14页，2006年7月\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[2] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e胡平：《民事证明责任分配的经济学分析》，西南政法大学硕士论文，第23页，2006年7月\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3] [\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e美]罗伯特Ÿ考特、托马斯Ÿ尤仑著：《法和经济学》，张军译，上海三联书店、上海人民出版社1995年版，第13页\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[4] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e转引自桑本谦：\u0026ldquo;对证明责任分配的经济学分析\u0026rdquo;，载《法哲学与法社会学论丛》（四），北京：中国政法大学出版社2001年12月第1版\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[5] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e李浩：《民事证明责任研究》，法律出版社2003年版，第135页\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[6] \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e以上参见朱慈蕴：《公司法人格否认制度理论与实践》，人民法院出版社2009年版，第八章\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[7] [\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e美]理查德ŸAŸ波斯纳:《法律的经济分析》，蒋兆康译，中国大百科全书出版社1997年版，第20页\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e三、原告的初步证据证明责任\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e即便是采取证明责任转移进路，由被告承担行为要件的证明责任，但不可忽略的是原告不仅仍然还有对主体要件和结果要件的证明责任，并且还有对行为要件提出初步证据的义务。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e这不仅仅是因为原告对于主体要件和结果要件的证明距离接近，而且也是出于一种利益平衡的考虑\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;防止原告滥诉而带给被告过多的证明责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e证明责任转移进路其实是针对原告取证难问题而提出的一种思路，主张\u0026ldquo;减轻原告的证明责任，其只需提供初步证据，令法官产生被告可能有滥用法人格的合理怀疑即完成证明义务\u0026rdquo;。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[1]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e这种进路在赋予被告以行为要件的证明责任的同时，也赋予了原告除对主体要件和结果要件进行举证以外的提出初步证据的义务：若要主张否认公司法人格，除了证明主体与结果要件，还要对股东的滥权行为提供初步证据，达到至少让法官产生合理怀疑的程度，如果不能够满足此项证明要求，则法官可以直接驳回其诉讼请求，而若使法官产生了合理怀疑，则此时证明责任才转移，转由被告来证明自己并无滥权行为，若其不能证明或证明不清，则应当承担不利后果。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e原告的提出初步证据的义务从大陆法系结果意义和行为意义上的证明责任的分类上来看，其实更接近于是一种行为意义上的举证责任，将最初的行为意义上的举证责任由原告承担，若原告不能满足，则法官直接驳回其诉讼请求；若原告满足了此项责任，则最后的结果责任由被告承担。这种举证责任能够满足，根本就在于能否提出充足的初步证据。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e初步证据主要是英美法上的一个概念，对其的理解可以建立在与表见证据的对比的基础上。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e\u0026ldquo;表见证据与表见证明相关。表见证明是在具有高度盖然性的经验法则发生作用的情形下，无需经过细致的认定，就可以直接对某事实做出认定的证明，属于法官心证形成的范畴。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[2]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e\u0026rdquo;换言之，表见证据是一种高度盖然性证据。而初步证据则不同，它的证明标准要低于优势证据标准，是一种低度盖然性证据，即只要达到合理怀疑的标准即可，因而对原告来说，只要真正存在其权利被股东滥权行为严重侵害的事实，则其就可以在能够达到的范围内收集到初步证据，而不需要付出大量的人力、物力和财力，证明成本极大降低，是非常经济而又有效率的。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e德国法院创设的\u0026ldquo;推定企业关系理论\u0026rdquo;在规定举证责任倒置的同时，也提出了由原告承担初步举证责任的要求，如果符合初步举证的要求，则举证责任转移给被告，被告需证明自己的行为善意、公平合法。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e将以上程序串联在一起则有：原告主张否认公司法人格（证明主体要件与结果要件）\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;原告举出行为要件的初步证据\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;被告进行举证\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;举证不能或真伪不明\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;被告承担结果责任。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e这形成了一条证明责任转移的完整的链条，从一个侧面说明了此条进路适用于法人格否认制度中的可行性。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e四、总结\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e举证之所在，败诉之所在。证明责任的分配对于民事诉讼来说十分重要，对法人格否认之诉来说更是如此。就我国现行的司法实践来说，债权人提起的法人格否认之诉总体上败诉率很高。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e一方面是因为法人格否认对现代公司制度尤其是有限责任制度来说是一种冲击，并且其在我国的研究尚浅，法官们因而慎之又慎；另一方面却是因为我国在证明责任分配上的不合理导致原告证明责任过重，原告调取证据困难又肩负着全部的证明责任，故而在诉讼中常因证据不足而败诉。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e对于此种情况，采取法院依申请取证进路实际上并不可行，法官出于法院立场的考虑往往不会批准原告的申请，就算批准了原告的申请，在调取证据的过程中出现的搜集权限、开示义务范围、手段、违反义务之制裁以及商业秘密保护等问题，都需要进行具体的规范，这些都会导致极大的不效率。而从法经济学建立的责任分配模型来看，将对行为要件的证明责任交给被告不论从证明成本或是错判损失上来看都具有极大的优势。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e而原告并非免于承担证明责任，而是在证明主体要件和结果要件的同时，提出针对行为要件的初步证据，使得被告同时也免于受到来自于原告滥诉所带来的不公平。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e双方均有证明的责任，双方当事人的证明成本都不高，并且法官裁量的依据充足，错判率低，这种举证责任的倒置对于法人格否认之诉来说是十分具有可行性的。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e虽然在我国的民事诉讼中，举证责任的倒置是一种例外适用，但是人格否认之诉本身也是一种例外之诉，因此本人认为，让证明责任转移进路普遍运用于法人格否认之诉之中，将这二者结合作为一个整体一起成为民事诉讼中的例外也未为不可。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e参考文献：\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[1]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e朱慈蕴：《公司法人格否认制度理论与实践》，人民法院出版社2009年版\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[2]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e杨微波：《论公司法人格否认诉讼的证明责任分配》，载《经济法研究》2008年第7卷\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e胡平：《民事证明责任分配的经济学分析》，西南政法大学硕士论文，2006年4月\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[4]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e宋朝武主编：《民事诉讼法学》，厦门大学出版社2008年版\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[5]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e罗伯特Ÿ考特、托马斯Ÿ尤仑著：《法和经济学》，张军译，上海三联书店、上海人民出版社1995年版\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"left\" style=\"margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10px;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[6]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e朱慈蕴：《论公司法人格否认法理的适用要件》，载《中外法学》1998年第5期\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n","content_en":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eSummary\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe distribution of the burden of proof in the lawsuit of denial of corporate legal personality in our country adopts the normative theory of Rosenbeck, that is, the plaintiff is given all the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThis kind of allocation has strong operability, but it is unreasonable in the lawsuit of denial of legal personality: the plaintiff\u0026#39;s ability to obtain evidence is limited and the burden of proof is too heavy, so the failure rate is very high.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe judges have summed up the two approaches of \u0026quot;transfer of the burden of proof\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;the court obtains evidence according to the application\u0026quot;. This paper supports the former, and tries to use the theory of burden of proof allocation, law and economics to demonstrate the inconsistency of our country\u0026#39;s normative theory. Reasonableness and feasibility of justifying the transfer of responsibility.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eKey words\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eTransfer of burden of proof; cost of proof; loss of misjudgment; elements of conduct; prima facie evidence.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eintroduction\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eArticle 20, paragraph 3 of my country\u0026#39;s \u0026quot;Company Law\u0026quot; stipulates: \u0026quot;A company shareholder who abuses the company\u0026#39;s independent status as a legal person and the limited liability of shareholders to evade debts and seriously damages the interests of the company\u0026#39;s creditors shall be jointly and severally liable for the company\u0026#39;s debts.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThere are few provisions in this article. While the system of denying corporate legal personality in my country is formally established in legislation, it does not make a clear statement on the distribution of the burden of proof that applies to this provision. There is a proverb in Roman law: \u0026quot;The burden of proof is the backbone of litigation.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eIt can be seen that the distribution of the burden of proof is of great importance to the lawsuit of denying the legal personality system. The so-called burden of proof means that when a certain fact as the basis of the judgment is unclear, the party shall bear the adverse consequences according to the pre-determined judgment norms. burden.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[1] According to the general theory of the distribution of burden of proof in our country, namely Rosenbeck\u0026#39;s normative theory, the Company Law assigns the burden of proof for the lawsuit of personality denial to the plaintiff: in fact, the provisions of the Company Law adopt the It is the principle of strict liability. If it is the principle of fault liability, the appropriate wording should be \u0026quot;If the shareholders of the company use the independent status of the company as a legal person to evade debts and seriously damage the interests of the company\u0026#39;s creditors, they should be jointly and severally liable to the company, but they can prove that they have not abused the legal person. Except for those with independent status\u0026quot;.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[2] Because the plaintiff bears the full burden of proof, the difficulty of obtaining evidence for the plaintiff has become a major problem in the application of the evidence rules in the case of denial of corporate legal personality in my country. The creditor requests to deny the legal personality of the company, and must provide strong evidence about the abuse of the company\u0026#39;s legal person status by the shareholders, and these key evidences such as the degree of control of the shareholders over the company, the mixing of the property of the two, and the related transactions, etc. are all controlled by the company. In most cases, the company will not cooperate with the plaintiff\u0026#39;s investigation, so the plaintiff has a high chance of losing the case due to difficulty in producing evidence.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eIn response to this problem, Professor Zhu Ciyun introduced two solutions: one is \u0026quot;the court takes evidence based on application\u0026quot;, that is, the court obtains relevant evidence according to the plaintiff\u0026#39;s application, but the burden of proof is still borne by the plaintiff; The plaintiff only needs to present prima facie evidence to make the judge have reasonable doubts about the defendant\u0026rsquo;s abuse of the company\u0026rsquo;s legal person status, and then the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that there is no abuse, otherwise he will bear the risk of losing the case.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3] His claim is to improve the court\u0026#39;s approach of collecting evidence based on application, and in principle, it does not take the approach of the burden of proof, but applies it exceptionally. However, I think it is feasible to adopt the method of shifting the burden of proof, and it should not be applied as an exception. Therefore, this paper will try to demonstrate the feasibility of the method of transferring the burden of proof by using the relevant knowledge of law and economics on the basis of the distribution theory of the burden of proof, and explain the process of transferring the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[1] Zhang Weiping: \u0026quot;Analysis of the Concept of the Burden of Proof\u0026quot;, in \u0026quot;Journal of Zhengzhou University\u0026quot; (Social Science Edition), No. 6, 2000\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[2] Zhu Ciyun: \u0026quot;The Theory and Practice of the System of Denial of Corporate Legal Personality\u0026quot;, People\u0026#39;s Court Press, 2009, p. 151\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3] Zhu Ciyun: \u0026quot;Theory and Practice of the System of Denial of Corporate Legal Personality\u0026quot;, People\u0026#39;s Court Press, 2009, p. 150\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e1. The unreasonableness of the plaintiff to bear the full burden of proof\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eRosenbeck\u0026#39;s norm theory holds that the parties should claim and prove the normative elements that are beneficial to them. If they claim the existence of rights, they should prove the legal elements arising from the rights; if they deny the existence of rights, they should prove the legal elements that hinder the rights. ; To claim the elimination of rights, it is necessary to provide evidence for the fact of the elimination of rights.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[1] This theory has become the general theory of our country because of its strong operability. But in fact, the boundaries between the generation and the extinction of rights are not clear. A fact can be a requirement for the generation of a right, or an element for obstructing the right or eliminating the right. At what point in time does it change in practice? is even more difficult to distinguish.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eAs far as the legal personality denial lawsuit is concerned, certain actions of shareholders may be the elements that hinder their rights for creditors, and may be their own rights for shareholders themselves. Attributing it to the responsibility of one of the parties is a bias of interest - the party with the full burden of proof proves that the cost is too high.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe \u0026quot;negative facts theory\u0026quot; popular in Germany before the 19th century believed that the parties who claim negative facts do not bear the burden of proof, because the cost of proof is generally higher than that of the parties who claim positive facts. The \u0026quot;dangerous field theory\u0026quot; in the middle of the 20th century advocated that when the cause of the damage in the legal or practical realm of life is unclear, the defendant shall bear the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[2] Specific to the lawsuit of denial of legal personality, the plaintiff is the denial, and what he claims is a negative fact, and the cost of proof itself is higher; The evidence of sexuality is under the control of the shareholders, which makes it more difficult for the plaintiff to provide evidence. Therefore, considering the cost of proof, it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to bear all the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eOf course, the unreasonable fact that the plaintiff bears all the burden of proof does not mean that the plaintiff does not have to bear the burden of proof. According to relevant laws and judicial interpretations, there are generally four facts that need to be proved in a case of denial of legal personality:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e(1) The shareholders have abused the legal personality of the company;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e(2) The abuse seriously infringes the interests of the creditors;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e(3) There is a causal relationship between the aforementioned acts of the shareholders and the damage to the rights and interests of creditors;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e(4) The shareholders are at fault subjectively when they carry out the aforesaid acts.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3] These four facts can be summarized into three elements, namely subject element, behavior element and result element.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe main element refers to the existence of abusive shareholders and the infringed counterpart; the behavior element refers to the behavior of the shareholder who abuses the company\u0026#39;s legal personality; the result element refers to the damage caused by the abuse of the controlling shareholder\u0026#39;s behavior.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[4] In other words, the legal personality denial system can only be applied if these three requirements are met.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThese three elements are independent of each other, which means that the distribution of the burden of proof for the above facts can actually be carried out according to the characteristics of these three elements.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe conditions for filing a lawsuit in a civil lawsuit require that the plaintiff must be a citizen, legal person or other organization that has a direct interest in the case\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[5] Therefore, the plaintiff should of course prove that he has a direct interest in this case, and pointed out that the abusive shareholder, the burden of proof for the main element should be borne by the plaintiff; and for the result element, the plaintiff is the victim of the shareholder\u0026#39;s abuse of the company\u0026#39;s legal personality. It is most clear about the process, extent and specific amount of losses caused by shareholders\u0026#39; actions, so the burden of proof for the result element can also be borne by the plaintiff.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[6] Two of the three elements can bear the burden of proof because the plaintiff proves closeness. What about the remaining behavior element? According to the existing general theory in our country, the plaintiff should bear the full burden of proof, which means that the plaintiff also needs to bear the burden of proof for the elements of conduct.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eTherefore, it can be inferred that if the plaintiff is more difficult to prove the elements of conduct than the defendant, the defendant should bear the burden of proof for this part, and it also means that it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to bear all the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eIn fact, the burden of proof that the defendant bears the elements of conduct is mainly based on the following considerations.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e1. From the perspective of the distance of proof, it is clearest whether the shareholder has abused the company\u0026#39;s legal person status, and if he does, he must do everything possible to conceal the creditor, and the key evidence is also It\u0026#39;s all hidden and not easy to find.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe creditors are not insiders of the company, and the sources of information are limited, so it is difficult to collect enough evidence to prove the abuse of power by the shareholders.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eTherefore, compared with the difficulty for creditors to obtain evidence of illegal acts of shareholders, it is much easier for shareholders to prove whether they have committed such acts for the court to assess.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e2. From the point of view of procedural fairness, for the plaintiff, the means of collecting evidence are very limited, and information can often only be obtained by consulting the company\u0026#39;s public registration archives, because the company\u0026#39;s internal information can only be obtained by shareholders according to the provisions of the Company Law. Inquiries, the company will not take the initiative to cooperate with the plaintiff to check the evidence.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe plaintiff can certainly apply to the court to obtain evidence, but in specific judicial practice, judges are often conservative in this regard, and generally reject the plaintiff\u0026#39;s application on the grounds of maintaining neutrality.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e\u0026quot;This situation amounts to the defendant being an armed soldier in an armoured car, and the plaintiff being Don Quixote single-handedly, wielding a spear for a challenge, or waving a company file in vain in front of an armoured car.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe defendant bears the burden of proof, forcing the defendant to climb out of the armored vehicle and engage in a confrontation with the plaintiff of equal strength.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[7]\u0026quot; It is an inevitable requirement of procedural fairness that the defendant bears the burden of proof for the elements of his conduct.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e3. From the point of view of litigation efficiency, on the one hand, the plaintiff\u0026#39;s evidence collection requires a lot of time and energy in collecting evidence and materials, while the defendant is more convenient and quick; The chance of misjudgment is much smaller.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe plaintiff often loses the case because of insufficient evidence. If the defendant has not abused the company\u0026#39;s legal personality, then there is no need to worry if he has sufficient evidence to testify himself. It is easy to reveal flaws, which is convenient for judges to judge. Therefore, the efficiency of the defendant\u0026#39;s evidence litigation is much higher.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eTo sum up the above three points, it is far more feasible for the defendant to bear the burden of proof of the elements of conduct than the plaintiff. It has lower proof costs, higher litigation efficiency and is more conducive to the realization of procedural fairness. Why should the plaintiff bear the burden? Such a heavy burden of proof? Therefore, once again, it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to bear the full burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[1] [De] Leo Rosenbeck: \u0026quot;The Theory of the Burden of Proof\u0026quot;, translated by Zhuang Jinghua, China Legal Publishing House, 2002 edition, p. 13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[2] Yang Microwave: \u0026quot;On the Distribution of the Burden of Proof in the Litigation of Denial of Corporate Legal Personality\u0026quot;, in Economic Law Research, Vol.7, 2008\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3] Zhu Ciyun: \u0026quot;The Theory and Practice of the System of Denial of Corporate Legal Personality\u0026quot;, People\u0026#39;s Court Press, 2009 edition, p. 161\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[4] Zhu Ciyun: \u0026quot;On the Applicable Requirements of the Denial of Jurisprudence of the Company\u0026#39;s Legal Personality\u0026quot;, in Chinese and Foreign Legal Studies, No. 5, 1998\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[5] Song Chaowu, editor-in-chief: \u0026quot;Civil Procedure Law\u0026quot;, Xiamen University Press, 2008 edition, p. 285\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[6] See Yang Weiwei: \u0026quot;On the Distribution of the Burden of Proof in the Litigation of Denial of Corporate Legal Personality\u0026quot;, in Economic Law Research, Vol.7, 2008\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[7] Yang Weiwei: \u0026quot;On the Distribution of the Burden of Proof in the Litigation of Denial of Corporate Legal Personality\u0026quot;, in Economic Law Research, Vol. 7, 2008, p. 345\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e2. Legal and Economic Analysis to Prove the Feasibility of the Transfer of Responsibility\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe above analysis is based on the theoretical analysis of the distribution of the burden of proof. It mainly compares the advantages and disadvantages of the plaintiff and the defendant with the burden of proof based on the size of the cost of proof and the distance of the evidence. Plaintiff is unreasonable.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eHowever, this is only an analysis result considering a small number of factors. In fact, there are many factors that affect the distribution of the burden of proof, and the final distribution is also the result of the combined effect of these factors. Therefore, it cannot be directly concluded because of the advantages of individual aspects. .\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eProfessor Zhu Ciyun also took this issue into consideration, and he put forward an idea, that is to first list the factors that affect the distribution of the burden of proof, and then analyze and integrate these factors according to the principles of law and economics, and then establish A mathematical model that finally attempts to draw conclusions from the analysis of this model.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eIn this analysis, I also adopt the modeling method of Professor Zhu Ciyun, and use his model to analyze the feasibility of the method of transferring the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eFrom the perspective of evidence science, there are three main factors that affect the reasonable distribution of the burden of proof: cost of proof, loss of misjudgment, and probability.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThese three factors are described below.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e(1) Prove the cost factor. The cost of proof is the manpower, material and financial resources required to realize the burden of proof. Generally speaking, the party with the lower proof cost should bear the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eFrom an economic point of view, the proof cost of the parties can be regarded as the accident prevention cost.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe American scholar Friedman explained the accident liability as \u0026quot;the party who can avoid the accident at a lower cost but fails to do so should bear the legal responsibility.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e\u0026quot;[1] That is, the party with the lower cost of proof should bear the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e(2) Misjudgment loss factors. When the facts of the case are unclear, the court may make a wrong judgment, and the wrong judgment often causes losses to the parties.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe theory on the distribution of the burden of proof has not paid much attention to this factor, but it does occupy an important position among the many factors that affect the distribution of the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eJudging from the subject amount of the lawsuit for denial of legal personality, it seems that no matter which party is wrongly judged, the losses of both parties are equal, because one party is the loss that is deserved but not received, and the other party is the loss that should not have been lost. .\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eHowever, according to the marginal utility principle of economics, the same value of resources will produce different utilities in different subjects.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eAmong the 22 substantive pieces of evidence listed by Hans Purwieting, \u0026quot;constitutional status\u0026quot; is similar to the principle of marginal utility, which asserts that responsibilities are allocated according to the constitutional status of the rights violated by the risk of misjudgment. be treated differently.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThat is to say, \u0026quot;If the wrongful deprivation of A\u0026#39;s property will only damage A\u0026#39;s property rights, and the wrongful deprivation of B\u0026#39;s ​​property will threaten B\u0026#39;s right to exist, then comparing the two\u0026#39;s constitutional status, the burden of proof should be allocated. For A, the right to subsistence deserves priority protection because of its constitutional superiority.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e\u0026quot;[2] Specifically in the practice of judicial application of the corporate legal personality denial system, it is necessary to consider the economic situation of the parties and the influence of the disputed claims on their living conditions to specifically analyze the difference in the loss of both parties due to misjudgment.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e(3) Probability factors. The influence of the probability factor on the distribution of the burden of proof is mainly manifested in the application of the probability rule.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe probabilistic rule refers to a rule of proof that judicially requires the judge to form a certain degree of inner conviction after the investigation, trial and judgment of the evidence in the determination of the facts of a case based on the court trial activities due to the limitations of subjective and objective conditions. .\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eIts claim takes the level of probability of fact as the standard for the distribution of the burden of proof: if the probability is low, that is, the court believes that the party\u0026#39;s claim is less likely to be true, then the party bears the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eExpressing the above factors in a mathematical way, there are the following propositions: Assuming that A and B are the parties to the lawsuit of personality denial, the proof costs for both parties are C1 and C2, and the probabilities of the asserted facts being true are P1 and P2, respectively. The actual misjudgment losses are L1 and L2, respectively.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eWithout considering any other influencing factors, if C1\u0026lt;C2 (Formula 1), then A bears the burden of proof; without considering any other influencing factors, if P1\u0026lt;P2 (Formula 2), then A bears the burden of proof Responsibility; without considering any other influencing factors, if L1\u0026lt;L2 (formula 3), then A bears the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eWith the above basic propositions, we can begin to construct a mathematical model for the distribution of the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eFirst of all, according to economics, \u0026quot;the loss should be allocated to the party who can bear the risk of such loss at the lowest cost.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3]\u0026quot; principle, first calculate the expected cost of misjudgment loss.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe expected misjudgment loss is the product of the misjudgment probability and the actual misjudgment loss, so formula 2 and formula 3 can be multiplied to obtain formula 4: when P1L1\u0026lt;P2L2, A bears the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThen, when formula 1 and formula 4 are added together, there is: C1+P1L1\u0026lt;C2+P2L2 (formula 5), ​​A bears the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThis formula is the basic model for the allocation of the burden of proof, indicating that the party with the smaller sum of the cost of proof and the expected cost of misjudgment should bear the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThis conclusion is completely consistent with the economic principles of accident law. The American scholar Calabresi explained that \u0026quot;the main function of accident law is to reduce the total amount of accident costs and accident avoidance costs\u0026quot;.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[4] To sum up, formula 5 can be said to be a preliminary law and economics model obtained by direct analysis, taking into account the influence of the above three factors.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eOf course, the distribution model of the burden of proof established by the above formula is just a theoretically pure mathematical standard model obtained by a simple preliminary analysis of three simple propositions. In fact, the distribution of the burden of proof is not such a simple linear superposition of numbers.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eA question that must be considered is, can Equation 1 and Equation 4 be added directly? Behind each formula represents a measure of social interests. Of course, between A and B, homogeneous factors can be divided into large and small, but different factors cannot.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe direct addition of Equation 1 and Equation 4 is actually based on the equal importance of the two formulas, and each factor has its own complex social influence, and the value of the influence is different. The above-established model for assigning the burden of proof actually ignores the possibility that a certain formula has priority over other factors.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eTherefore, in order to improve the model, it is necessary to determine which of the two formulas has priority and its importance to the entire burden of proof allocation process.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eProfessor Li Hao believes: \u0026quot;When various values ​​conflict, although it is impossible to cover all aspects and one or that value must be sacrificed, it is entirely possible to give priority to one value while taking into account one or two other values.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[5]\u0026quot; In other words, the aforementioned formula still has room for improvement, and it is possible to set different value ratios for comparison when a formula has priority.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eHere, a weight coefficient can be arranged before each announcement. The size of the coefficient represents the position and influence of each factor in the distribution of the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThen a new allocation model can be obtained at this time: when XC1+YP1L1\u0026lt;XC2+YP2L2 (Formula 6), Party A shall bear the burden of proof {X, Y \u0026isin; (0, 1), X+Y=1, both Respectively represent the value status of each item in the distribution of the burden of proof}.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThen, formula 6 is applied to the distribution of the burden of proof of the behavior elements in the legal personality denial system, and the coefficient problem is specifically considered.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eAs far as the cost of proof is concerned, it is obvious that the cost of proof for the plaintiff is higher, that is, C1\u0026gt;C2, which has been discussed above.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe loss of misjudgment is worth scrutinizing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eJudging from the actual loss of misjudgment, the amount of losses to the disputed claims is the same. The problem lies in the influence of the disputed claims on the economic and living conditions of both parties.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThere is no simple way to draw a conclusion to this question, because the specific losses that the creditor may suffer due to the infringement of rights and the economic situation of both parties depend on the different circumstances of the case, and the so-called model is an abstract model with A formula with a general meaning within a certain range, so it cannot be limited to a specific level.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eIn fact, in my opinion, the actual misjudgment loss here should be analyzed from a macro perspective.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eAlthough the amount of the disputed claims is fixed, the denial of the application of corporate legal personality not only causes damage to the company itself, but also damages the institutional value of the principle of limited liability for company shareholders.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eSo in fact at the macro level, L1\u0026lt;L2. Then there\u0026#39;s the probability factor.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eDue to the lack of effective material support for probabilistic factors, Professor Zhu Ciyun does not consider it in the book for the time being. Finally, in terms of weight design, although the plaintiff can apply to the court to obtain evidence, the adoption rate of this method is very low in my country\u0026#39;s judicial practice. Because most judges adopt a wait-and-see attitude, it is difficult for the plaintiff to reduce the cost of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThis is not the case for the loss of wrongful conviction, which is based on the judge\u0026#39;s wrongful conviction, which means that it can be controlled by the judge\u0026#39;s rigorous justice, and in our country, the application of the judge\u0026#39;s denial of legal personality has been prudent and cautious. , it can be said that even if there is a misjudgment, it is more of a misjudgment of the creditor, so for the loss of misjudgment, it should be given a smaller weight, that is, X\u0026gt;Y. And because of the magnifying effect of X on the value of C, when C1=L1, C2=L2, according to Formula 6, XC1+YP1L1\u0026gt;XC2+YP2L2, the defendant should bear the burden of proof.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eAnd if the defendant bears the burden of proof for the elements of the behavior, as has been discussed in the first part, the probability of the defendant\u0026#39;s claim being true or false is actually equal, which means that P1=P2, and the fault at this time is The judgment rate and the cost of proof are reduced due to the strong proof ability of the defendant, which makes the value of XC2+YP2L2 continue to decrease.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eTherefore, from the analysis of the above economic model, it can be seen that the transfer of the burden of proof is feasible in the application of the legal personality denial system, and should not only be used as an exception for one-person companies.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[6] There is another question about the above model, that is, there are many factors that affect the distribution of civil burden of proof, at least not limited to three, but this model only considers these three factors and makes many assumptions, so The analytical structure is too idealized and completely disconnected from the complex judicial practice. But it\u0026#39;s not actually the case.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eAlthough there are only three factors, the selection of these three factors is based on sufficient theoretical basis and experience, and as substantive evidence for the distribution of the burden of proof, they are of great importance in various theories, theories and judicial practice. influence, not comparable to other factors that appear as a minority.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe method of economics itself cannot take into account all factors, but selects the main and important factors to study, so as to draw a more reliable conclusion.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe same is true for the economic analysis of the distribution of the burden of proof in civil society. Instead, we should focus on selecting them. Furthermore, if we take into account and analyze all possible factors, we will first fall into a state of chaos - \u0026quot;The economics of law cannot grasp the whole complexity, richness and confusion of the whole phenomenon which he is trying to elucidate. sex\u0026quot;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[7] Therefore, the above model uses the cost of proof, loss of misjudgment and probability factors as parameters to establish a mathematical model, which is not against reality and out of practice, but a key analysis method based on practice and experience. A more efficient and scientific analysis than the overall consideration.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[1] Hu Ping: \u0026quot;Economic Analysis of the Distribution of Civil Liability of Proof\u0026quot;, Master Thesis of Southwest University of Political Science and Law, p. 14, July 2006\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[2] Hu Ping: Economic Analysis of the Distribution of Civil Liability of Proof, Master Thesis of Southwest University of Political Science and Law, p. 23, July 2006\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3] [America] Robert Court, Thomas Ulun: Law and Economics, translated by Zhang Jun, Shanghai Sanlian Publishing House, Shanghai People\u0026#39;s Publishing House, 1995, p. 13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[4] Quoted from Sang Benqian: \u0026quot;An Economic Analysis of the Distribution of the Burden of Proof\u0026quot;, in \u0026quot;Law Philosophy and Sociology of Law\u0026quot; (4), Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press, December 2001, 1st edition\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[5] Li Hao: \u0026quot;Research on the Civil Liability of Proof\u0026quot;, Law Press, 2003 edition, p. 135\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[6] For the above, see Zhu Ciyun: \u0026quot;The Theory and Practice of the System of Denial of Corporate Legal Personality\u0026quot;, People\u0026#39;s Court Press, 2009, Chapter 8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[7] [America] Richard \u0026Yuml; A \u0026Yuml; Posner: Economic Analysis of Law, translated by Jiang Zhaokang, China Encyclopedia Publishing House, 1997, p. 20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e3. The plaintiff\u0026#39;s prima facie burden of proof\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eEven if the burden of proof is shifted and the defendant bears the burden of proof for the elements of conduct, it cannot be ignored that the plaintiff not only has the burden of proof for the elements of the main body and the elements of the result, but also has the obligation to present prima facie evidence for the elements of the conduct.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThis is not only because the plaintiff\u0026#39;s proof of the main element and the result element is close, but also out of a consideration of balance of interests-to prevent the plaintiff from indiscriminately suing and bring too much burden of proof to the defendant.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe method of shifting the burden of proof is actually a way of thinking about the difficulty of obtaining evidence for the plaintiff. It advocates that \u0026quot;to reduce the burden of proof of the plaintiff, it only needs to provide prima facie evidence, so that the judge can complete the burden of proof when there is a reasonable suspicion that the defendant may abuse legal personality.\u0026quot; .\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[1] This approach, while giving the defendant the burden of proof of the conduct element, also gives the plaintiff the obligation to present prima facie evidence in addition to proving the subject element and the result element: if one wants to claim the denial of the corporate legal personality, in addition to proving the subject element and the result requirements, but also provide prima facie evidence for the abuse of power by the shareholders, to the extent that the judge can at least cast a reasonable doubt. If this proof requirement cannot be met, the judge can directly dismiss the claim, and if the judge produces If there is reasonable doubt, the burden of proof will be transferred at this time, and it will be transferred to the defendant to prove that he has not abused his power.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe plaintiff\u0026#39;s obligation to present prima facie evidence is actually closer to the burden of proof in the sense of conduct in terms of the classification of the burden of proof in the sense of result and the sense of conduct in the civil law system, and the burden of proof in the sense of initial conduct is borne by the plaintiff , if the plaintiff cannot satisfy, the judge directly rejects its claim; if the plaintiff satisfies this responsibility, the final result responsibility shall be borne by the defendant. The satisfaction of this burden of proof depends on whether sufficient prima facie evidence can be presented.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003ePreliminary evidence is mainly a concept in Anglo-American law, and its understanding can be established on the basis of comparison with prima facie evidence.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e\u0026quot;Appearance evidence is related to apparent proof. Appearance proof is a proof that a fact can be directly determined without careful identification under the circumstance that a highly probabilistic rule of thumb is in play. category.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[2]\u0026quot; In other words, prima facie evidence is a kind of high probability evidence. Unlike prima facie evidence, its standard of proof is lower than the standard of preponderance evidence, and it is a low probability evidence, that is, as long as the standard of reasonable doubt is met Therefore, for the plaintiff, as long as there is a real fact that his rights have been seriously infringed by the abuse of power by shareholders, he can collect preliminary evidence within the scope of his ability, without having to spend a lot of manpower, material and financial resources to prove The cost is greatly reduced, and it is very economical and efficient.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe \u0026quot;presumptive corporate relationship theory\u0026quot; created by the German courts not only stipulates the inversion of the burden of proof, but also puts forward the requirement that the plaintiff should bear the preliminary burden of proof. Good faith, fairness and lawfulness.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe above procedures are linked together: the plaintiff claims to deny the legal personality of the company (the main elements of proof and the elements of the result) - the plaintiff gives prima facie evidence of the behavior elements - the defendant provides evidence - the evidence cannot be presented or the authenticity is unknown - the defendant bears the result responsibility.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e[3] This forms a complete chain of transfer of the burden of proof, which illustrates the feasibility of this approach in the legal personality denial system from one side.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003e4. Summary\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eWhere the evidence is, where the case is lost. The distribution of the burden of proof is very important for civil litigation, especially for legal personality denial. As far as my country\u0026#39;s current judicial practice is concerned, the overall failure rate of the legal personality denial lawsuit brought by the creditor is very high.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eOn the one hand, it is because the denial of legal personality has an impact on the modern company system, especially the limited liability system, and its research in our country is still shallow, so judges are cautious; The unreasonableness of the plaintiff leads to an excessive burden of proof for the plaintiff. It is difficult for the plaintiff to obtain evidence and bears the full burden of proof. Therefore, the lawsuit often loses due to insufficient evidence.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eIn this case, it is actually not feasible for the court to collect evidence by application. The judge often does not approve the plaintiff\u0026#39;s application due to the court\u0026#39;s position. Issues such as authority, scope of disclosure obligations, means, sanctions for violation of obligations, and protection of trade secrets all need to be regulated in detail, which will lead to great inefficiency. From the perspective of the responsibility distribution model established by law and economics, it has great advantages in terms of the cost of proof or the loss of misjudgment to the defendant for the burden of proof on the elements of behavior.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eThe plaintiff is not exempted from the burden of proof, but at the same time proving the main element and the result element, he presents preliminary evidence against the behavior element, so that the defendant is also exempted from the unfairness caused by the plaintiff\u0026#39;s indiscriminate lawsuit.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eBoth parties have the burden of proof, the cost of proof for both parties is not high, and the judge has sufficient basis for discretion, and the rate of misjudgment is low. This inversion of the burden of proof is very feasible for legal personality denial lawsuits.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10.5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 等线;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: rgb(62, 62, 62);\"\u003eAlthough in my country\u0026#39;s civil litigation, the inversion of the burden of proof is an exceptional application, but the lawsuit of personality denial itself is also an exceptional lawsuit. Therefore, I think that the transfer of the burden of proof is generally used in the lawsuit of legal personality denial. , it is not impossible to combine the two as a whole and become an exception in civil litigation.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003ereferences:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e[1] Zhu Ciyun: \u0026quot;Theory and Practice of the System of Denial of Corporate Legal Personality\u0026quot;, People\u0026#39;s Court Press, 2009 edition\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e[2] Yang Weiwei: \u0026quot;On the Distribution of the Proof Burden of the Company\u0026#39;s Legal Personality Denial Litigation\u0026quot;, in Economic Law Research, Vol. 7, 2008\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e[3] Hu Ping: \u0026quot;Economic Analysis of the Distribution of Civil Liability of Proof\u0026quot;, Master Thesis of Southwest University of Political Science and Law, April 2006\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e[4] Song Chaowu, editor-in-chief: \u0026quot;Civil Procedure Law\u0026quot;, Xiamen University Press, 2008 edition\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e[5] Robert \u0026middot; Court, Thomas \u0026middot; Ulun: \u0026quot;Law and Economics\u0026quot;, translated by Zhang Jun, Shanghai Sanlian Publishing House, Shanghai People\u0026#39;s Publishing House, 1995 edition\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e[6] Zhu Ciyun: \u0026quot;On the Applicable Elements of the Denial of Legal Principles of the Company\u0026#39;s Legal Personality\u0026quot;, in \u0026quot;Chinese and Foreign Law\u0026quot;, No. 5, 1998\u003c/p\u003e\r\n","_type":"继来法视界","position":0,"created_at":"2020-12-07T17:00:17.409+08:00","updated_at":"2020-12-07T13:12:00.000+08:00","pv":19698,"abstract_zh":"我国公司法人格否认之诉中证明责任的分配采取的是罗森贝克的规范说，即赋予原告全部证明责任。","abstract_en":"The distribution of the burden of proof in the lawsuit of denial of corporate legal personality in our country adopts Rosenbeck's normative theory, that is, the plaintiff is given all the burden of proof.","link":""}