一问题
根据民事诉讼证据规则，已为人民法院生效裁判所确认的事实，当事人无须举证证明。那么，生效裁判所确认的事实是否仅限于“认定事实”部分所记载的事实，而不包含“裁判说理（本院认为）”部分认定的事实？
二意见
对于生效裁判所确认的事实是否包含“裁判说理（本院认为）”部分认定的事实，实践中尚存在争议。笔者倾向认为，对于裁判文书中“裁判说理（本院认为）”部分所认定的案件事实，如果属于在审判活动中经过举证、质证活动后有证据证明的案件事实，亦应当认定为“已为人民法院发生法律效力的裁判所确认的事实”。
三分析
根据《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第十条第一款第六项的规定，“已为人民法院发生法律效力的裁判所确认的事实”当事人无须举证证明。但因为裁判文书由“法院查明的事实（本院认定事实如下）”“裁判说理（本院认为）”“裁判主文（本院判决如下）”等部分组成，且没有法律明确规定裁判文书确认的事实的具体指向，故司法实务中，对“已为人民法院发生法律效力的裁判所确认的事实”的理解和适用存在较大争议。最常见的说法是“裁判说理（本院认为）”部分认定的内容不属于“已为人民法院发生法律效力的裁判所确认的事实”。例如，在案号为（2021）最高法民申7088号的广州某房地产信息咨询有限公司与张家港市某发展有限公司财产损害赔偿纠纷再审审查民事裁定书中，法院认为：“人民法院生效裁判文书中裁判理由的内容不能被认定为已为人民法院发生法律效力的裁判所确认的事实。”
也有观点认为，生效的裁判文书确认的事实，应包括“裁判说理（本院认为）”部分确认的事实。例如，在案号为（2019）最高法行申2810号的覃某某、广西壮族自治区河池市宜州区庆远镇某村民小组土地行政管理（土地）再审审查与审判监督行政裁定书中，法院认为：“生效的人民法院裁判文书确认的事实，应当是指生效裁判主文确认的事实，以及受生效裁判文书主文拘束的、不可替代的事实认定或裁判说理。”该案虽系行政案件，但根据《最高人民法院关于行政诉讼证据若干问题的规定》第七十条规定，“生效的人民法院裁判文书或者仲裁机构裁决文书确认的事实，可以作为定案依据。”该行政诉讼案件证据规则实际上与前述《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第十条第一款第六项规定的精神是一致的。此外，也有观点认为，对于“裁判说理（本院认为）”部分的事实认定，如有证据可以推翻的，在后裁判不受在先裁判的影响，人民法院可以根据当事人举证情况做出独立认定，也就是说没有证据可以推翻的，在后裁判需要受在先裁判的影响。例如，在案号为（2019）最高法民再384号的黄小某、某商贸广场房产开发有限公司合资、合作开发房地产合同纠纷再审民事判决书中，法院认为：“人民法院的生效裁判具有既判力，但该效力仅限于生效裁判的判项，对于‘本院认为’部分的认定，如有证据可以推翻的，在后裁判不受在先裁判的影响，人民法院可以根据当事人举证情况做出独立认定。”综合上述三个案例所反映的观点，笔者倾向认为，“裁判说理（本院认为）”部分认定的事实，如果根据裁判文书记载内容，属于在审判活动中经过举证、质证活动后有证据证明的案件事实，即使其并未在“法院查明的事实（本院认定事实如下）”部分列举，亦应当属于“已为人民法院发生法律效力的裁判所确认的事实”，主要理由如下：若生效裁判文书的说理部分认定的事实是经过举证、质证和认证活动的，其本身就属于在法庭的组织下对事实的认定。前述（2021）最高法民申7088号民事裁定虽然总体上否定了“裁判理由”作为已为人民法院发生法律效力的裁判所确认的事实，但该份裁定并未绝对否定裁判理由部分认定事实的法律效力。该裁定认为：“一般来说，经人民法院确认的案件事实应在裁判文书中有明确无误的记载或表述。而裁判文书中的裁判理由，则是人民法院对当事人之间的争议焦点或其他争议事项作出评判的理由，以表明人民法院对当事人之间的争议焦点或其他争议事项的裁判观点。裁判理由的内容，既可能包括案件所涉的相关事实阐述，也可能包括对法律条文的解释适用，或者事实认定与法律适用二者之间的联系。但裁判理由部分所涉的相关事实，并非均是经过举证、质证和认证活动后有证据证明的案件事实，因此不能被认定为裁判文书所确认的案件事实。一般来说，裁判文书中裁判理由的内容无论在事实认定还是裁判结果上对于其他案件均不产生拘束力和既判力。”从该段说理中，不难看出最高法也持谨慎态度，并未完全否定裁判理由中的事实认定的法律效力。该份裁定中最高法认为不属于生效裁判确认的事实有一个隐性前提，即未经过举证、质证和认证活动后有证据证明的案件事实。对此，笔者认为，若根据裁判文书记载内容可以明确判断，已经举证、质证和认证活动后有证据证明的案件事实，即使是列举在“裁判说理（本院认为）”部分，亦应属于生效裁判确认的事实。当然，以上意见仅为笔者提出的专业探讨，实践中不同法院可能对前述问题存在不同的理解。故建议广大律师朋友，即使存在生效裁判的裁判说理部分对事实进行了认定，在举证时亦需进行充分全面地举证，避免因举证不充分承担不利后果。文章观点如有不妥，敬请批评指正。
Discussion | Is it Unnecessary to Provide Evidence for the Facts Found in the " Reasoning of Judgment " Section?
A
Issue
According to the rules of civil litigation evidence, facts that have been affirmed by the effective judgment of the people’s court do not need to be proved by the parties. Then, does the fact affirmed by the effective judgment only refer to the facts recorded in the “the finding of facts” section, and does not include the facts found in the “reasoning of judgment (the court believes)” section?
B
Opinion
There is still controversy in practice regarding whether the facts affirmed by the effective judgment include the facts found in the “reasoning of the judgment (the court believes)” section. The author tends to believe that the facts of the case found in the “reasoning of judgment (the court believes)” section of the adjudication documents, if they belong to the facts of the case proven by evidence through the trial process of evidentiary and cross-examination, they should also be found as “facts affirmed by an effective judgment of the people’s court”.
C
Analysis
According to Article 10, Paragraph 1(6) of the Provisions by the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures, the parties do not need to provide evidence to prove “the facts affirmed in the judgment of the people’s court that has taken effect”. However, because a judgment document consists of different parts such as “facts found by the court (the court found the following facts)”, “reasoning of judgment (the court believes)” and “the main text of the judgment (the court orders)”, there is no clear legal provisions of the facts affirmed by the adjudicative documents, so in the judicial practice, it has controversy on the understanding and application of “the facts affirmed by people’s court with the legal effect of the judgment ”. The most common view is that the content found in the “reasoning of judgment (the court believes)” section is not included. For example, in the civil ruling on the retrial review of the property damage compensation dispute between a Real Estate Information Consulting Co., Ltd. in Guangzhou and a Development Co., Ltd. in Zhangjiagang City[ (2021) No.7088 SPC Civil Appeal Trial], the court held that: “The content of the reasons for the ruling in the effective judgment documents of the people’s court cannot be found as the facts affirmed by the ruling that has taken legal effect by the people’s court.”
There is also the view that the facts affirmed by the effective judgement documents should include the facts affirmed by the “reasoning of judgment (the court believes)” section. For example, in the administrative ruling on land administration (land) retrial review and trial supervision of Somebody Qin and a Village Group in Qing Yuan Town, Yizhou District, Hechi City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region [ (2019) No.2810 SPC Administrative Appeal Trial],the court held that: “The facts affirmed by the effective people’s court judgment documents shall refer to the facts affirmed in the main text of the effective judgment, as well as the irreplaceable facts finding or reasoning of the judgment that is bound by the main text of the effective judgment documents.” Although this case is an administrative case, according to Article 70 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues of Evidence in Administrative Litigation, the facts affirmed by the effective judgment documents of people’s court or arbitration institution ruling instruments can be used as the basis for determining the case.” This rule of evidence in administrative litigation cases is in fact consistent with the spirit of the aforementioned provisions of Article 10, Paragraph1(6) of the Provisions by the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures.Additionally, there is also the view that, for fact finding in the “reasoning of judgment (the court believes)” section, if there is evidence to overturn, the later judgment is not affected by the earlier judgment. The people’s court can make an independent finding based on the parties’ proof. That is, if there is no evidence to overturn, the later judgment needs to be affected by the earlier judgment. For example, in the civil retrial ruling on the dispute over the joint venture, cooperative development of real estate contracts between somebody Huang and a Certain Commercial Square Real Estate Development Co., Ltd [ (2019) No.384 SPC Civil Retrial], the court held that: “The effective judgment of the people’s court has res judicata effect, but the effect is limited to the sentence of the effective res judgment, for the ‘the court believes’ section of the identification, if there is evidence that can be overturned, the later judgment is not affected by the earlier judgment, the people’s court can make an independent finding based on the evidence of the parties.”Based on the viewpoints reflected in the three cases mentioned above, the author believes that if the facts found in the “reasoning of judgment (the court believes)” section of an effective judgment belong to the case facts proven by evidence through the trial process of evidentiary cross-examination, even if they are not listed in the “facts found by the court (the court found the following facts)” section, they should still be considered as “facts affirmed by an effective judgment of the people’s court.” The main reasons are as follows:If the facts finding in the “reasoning of judgment (the court believes)” section of an effective judgment have undergone evidentiary, cross-examination and authentication activities, then they belong to a judicial affirmation of the facts. Although the case mentioned earlier (2021) No.7088 SPC Civil Appeal Trial generally denied the legal effect of the “reasoning of judgment”, the judgment did not absolutely denied the legal effect of the facts finding in the reasoning section. The judgment states that “Generally, the facts of a case found by the people's court should be recorded or stated explicitly and unambiguously in the judgment. The reasoning of the judgment section is the court’s reasoning for evaluating the disputed focal points or other disputes between the parties to express the court’s judgment view. The relevant facts in the reasoning section may involve the explanation and application of legal provisions or the connection between the facts finding and the application of the law. However, not all related facts in the reasoning section are those proven by evidentiary, cross-examination and authentication activities. Therefore, the facts finding in the reasoning section cannot be considered as affirmed case facts in the judgment. Generally speaking, the reasoning section of the judgment has no binding effect and res judicata on other cases regarding the facts finding and judgment results.” From the paragraph of reasoning, it is easy to see that the supreme people’s court also takes a cautious attitude and does not completely deny the legal effect of the facts finding in the reasons for the judgment. The ruling of the supreme people’s court that does not belong to the facts affirmed by the effective judge has an implicit premise, that is, the facts of the case that have not been proved by evidence after the activities of evidentiary, cross-examination and authentication. In this regard, the author believes that if the content of the judgment documents can be clearly judged, the facts of the case that have been proved by evidentiary cross-examination and authentication activities, even if they are listed in the “reasoning of judgment (the court believes)” section, should also belong to the facts affirmed by the effective judgment.Of course, the above opinions are only the author’s professional discussion. In practice, different courts may have different understandings of the aforementioned issues. Therefore, we recommended that, the lawyers, even if the reasoning part of the effective judgment affirmed the facts, it is necessary to provide sufficient and comprehensive evidence to avoid bearing adverse consequences due to insufficient evidence.If there is any inappropriate point in the article, please criticize and correct it.
