The responsibility of a party for stating facts and producing evidences, who has no burden of proof or persuation.

在民事诉讼中，当事人对哪些事实存在争议，必须予以澄清。鉴于这一目的，原告需要如何具体地解释他或她的索赔所依据的事实？被告是否可以仅仅是这样的事实而没有任何具体的陈述？如果要求他们具体地解释或陈述这些事实，从法律的角度来看，解释或陈述的非具体化将会产生什么影响，这将是一个基本的问题。而当一方当事人有举证责任或说服责任，但无法获得必要的信息时，在适当的条件下，掌握信息的另一方当事人应承担与一方当事人合作解释事实和举证的责任。然而，由于另一方当事人本来就没有说服和提供对自己不利的事实和证据的责任，这将是一个非常重要的问题，在什么情况下…我在这项研究中试图解决最后一个问题，考察了德国和日本的先例的发展。首先，笔者沿袭了强制和发展了将事实和证据的举证责任推给无举证责任当事人的德国判例，并分析了德国学者关于这些判例的理论。其次，分析了日本环境或税收诉讼实践中同一当事人承担的陈述事实责任的内容，最后得出结论：(1)有举证责任或说服责任的一方当事人不在事外；(2)没有为自己解释事实的可能；(3)另一方当事人可以很容易地解释事实；(4)从有关情况来看，可以期待对方当事人这样做，在日本民事诉讼中，对方当事人也应当以诚实信用原则为依据，对具体陈述事实并提出异议承担责任。较少

In civil procedure, it must be clarified what facts the parties dispute about. In the light of that purpose, how concretely does the plainitiff need to explain the facts his or her claims is basesd on? May the defendant merely such facts without any concrete statement?If they are required concretely to explain or state such facts, it would be an essential problem what effect non-concreteness of the explanation or statement would have from the legal point of view. And when one party has a burden of proof or persuation, but does not have access to necessary information, it would be desiable that, under proper conditions, the other party who has the information should take the responsability for co-operation with the one party in explaining facts and producing evidences.Since the other party, however, does not originally have a burden of persuation and producing facts and evidences such as would be disadvantageous to himself or herself, it would be a very important problem, under what con … More ditions he or she should take the above responsibility.I have tried in this research to solve the last problem, surveying the developments of German and Japanese precedents. First, I have followed German precedents which have forced and developed the doctrine imposing the responsibility of producing facts and evidences on the party who has no burden of proof or persuation, and analyzed German scholars' theories relating to theses precedents. Second, I have analyzed the content of the responsibility of stating facts, which has been imposed on the same party as above in practice of Japanese environment or taxation litigation.Finally, I have concluded that, if(1) one party who has a burden of proof or persuation, is out of affairs ; and(2) he or she has no possibility of explaining facts for himself or herself ; but(3) the other party can easily explan the facts ; and(4) he or she can be expected to do so from the viewpoint of circumstances concerned, the other party should be responsibility by bona-fide or good faith rule for stating facts concretely and producing rerlevant, eridences, in Japanese civil procedure, too. Less