چگونگي شكل‌گيري اماره اثبات دعوي

How Evidence Are Formed to Prove Claims?

اماره در قانون مدني در زمره دلائل اثبات دعوي آمده است كه به دو دسته «اماره قانوني» و «اماره قضايي» تقسيم شده است و به رغم ظاهر ساده، عوامل متعددي در شكل‌گيري آن نقش ايفا مي‌كنند كه تأثير اين عوامل در اماره قانوني و قضايي، تا اندازه زيادي متفاوت از يكديگر مي‌باشد. مباحث پراكنده‌اي ذيل عنوان ماهيت، اساس و منشأ امارات، در كتب حقوقي يافت مي‌شود كه مقاله پيش رو درصدد سامان‌دهي به اين مباحث ـ البته ذيل عنوان «چگونگي شكل‌گيري اماره اثبات دعوي» ـ است تا بدين ترتيب نشان دهد كه چگونه يك اماره اثبات دعوي اعم از اماره قانوني و اماره قضايي، به منصه ظهور مي‌رسد. «غلبه»، «عرف و عادت» و «اذن قانون‌گذار» مجموعه عواملي‌اند كه در منشأ اماره اثبات دعوي نقش دارند. عناصر تشكيل‌دهنده اماره قانوني عبارت‌اند از: غلبه و اذن قانون‌گذار، در حالي كه عناصر اماره قضايي را قرينه يا اوضاع و احوال خاص همان دعوي و عمل استنباط دادرس تشكيل مي‌دهد و در مقام اِعمال هر اماره، دو روش استقرايي و قياسي با يكديگر تلفيق مي‌شوند.

In the Civil Code, evidence have been considered as proofs for claims; evidence have been classified under two titles: “legal circumstantial evidence” and “circumstantial evidence left to the view of the judge”. In spite of their simple appearance, there are many factors involved in forming them and the effects of these factors on legal circumstantial evidence and circumstantial evidence left to the view of the judge are, to a great extent, different. There are various discussions dispersed in legal books under nature, foundation, and origin of evidence. The present article tries to organize these discussion under the title “how evidence are formed to prove claims” so that it may be found that how evidence (whether legal circumstantial evidence or circumstantial evidence left to the view of the judge) appear to prove claims. Prevalence, convention, and the permit issued by the legislator are factors playing role in the origination of evidence to prove claims. Factors forming legal circumstantial evidence are as follows: prevalence and the permit issued by the legislator; while the elements of circumstantial evidence left to the view of the judge are context or the situation of a particular claim and inference made by the judge. When each of the two types of evidence is applied, two inductive and deductive methods are combined.