The focus of the dispute is in the judgment. A case has to go through filing, exchanging evidence, court debate and final statement, and finally the focus of the dispute is summarized according to a series of operations in the trial. The following share the focus of controversy in the judgment.

The focus of controversy in the judgment 1 How to accurately summarize the focus of controversy in the judgment document?

The judgment document is the final product of the whole judicial work assembly line, the concentrated expression of the people's court exercising judicial power according to law, and the most refined and complete summary of the whole litigation activity. Judgment documents should not only reflect the justice of the people's court's judgment in conclusion, but also make the parties know and understand why the judgment is just by correctly summarizing the focus of the dispute and thorough reasoning analysis. Therefore, summarizing the focus of the dispute is the core and key of the judgment document and the most important part of the judgment document.

Only when the focus of the dispute is accurate and the reasoning is thorough can we ensure the accuracy of the judgment, the correct implementation of the law, and let the masses feel fairness and justice in every judicial case.

How to summarize the focus of disputes between the parties should pay attention to the following aspects:

The first is to improve the quality of pre-trial marking. The judge's views on the focus of disputes between the parties are gradually formed, including pre-trial marking, pre-trial meetings, court investigation, document writing and so on. Therefore, the judge should carefully review the litigation materials in the pre-trial preparation stage, and make clear the demands, main reasons, main facts and main contradictions of the parties through marking. It is very important not to wait until the investigation stage of the trial and to grasp the focus of the dispute.

Second, before the trial, we should make necessary preparations for the substantive legal norms of the parties' defense. The judge should not only consult the substantive legal norms supporting the plaintiff's claim, but also consult the substantive legal norms on which the defendant's defense claim is based. This is actually a process of "finding the law" between the original and the defendant.

The third is to fix the plaintiff's claim in the court trial stage and clarify the defendant's defense claim. Inducing the focus of disputes should be based on one principle, and the next trial idea can be seen from the determined focus of disputes, which is convenient for the next court investigation.

The focus of the dispute is often on the basis of clarifying the defense opinions of the original defendant and through full confrontation between the two sides. Therefore, in order to accurately define the focus of the dispute, it is necessary to clarify the inherent logical relationship between the facts and reasons of the original defendants' respective demands and propositions, and comprehensively analyze the original defense opinions.

The fourth is the accurate application of the law in the process of judging. When drafting a judgment document, a judge should analyze the substantive legal norms supporting the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's defense, and find out the constituent elements of the legal provisions.

There must be some legal relationship between the parties in civil cases, such as tort relationship, contract relationship, unjust enrichment relationship and so on. Combining the characteristics of various legal relationships, accurately grasping the rights and obligations of the parties, on this basis, accurately applying substantive legal norms and related elements, and then summarizing the focus of disputes according to the factual reasons of the plaintiff's prosecution and the defendant's defense. Only in this way can the focus of the dispute be truly comprehensive, accurate, objective and legal.

When making a judgment document, after summarizing the focus of the dispute, each focus can be described in sections according to the "syllogism", namely:

1, what is the legal norm;

2. What are the legal facts?

3. What are the legal consequences? In other words, state the legal provisions first, then state the controversial facts of the case, and finally write a conclusion, so as to be well-founded and clear-cut. "Syllogism" actually requires the judgment documents to follow a certain logical order, so that the reasoning is meaningful and thorough.

In a word, summarizing the focus of disputes is an important skill of judges and an important symbol to measure their judicial ability. It is not only the key issue in the dispute of evidence facts and legal application, but also the main line of making judgment documents. Therefore, judges should be good at summing up experience, constantly improve their ability to accurately summarize the focus of disputes, and ensure that every case can stand the test of time and meet the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The focus of controversy in the judgment II. Problems existing in current judges' summing up the focus of disputes

After hearing the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's defense, the judge summed up the focus of the dispute. In general, the focus of the summarized dispute has nothing to do with the facts of the case. Therefore, there is a main problem in the judge's generalization of the controversial focus, not the error of the controversial focus, but the inaccuracy of the controversial focus. Inaccurate performance mainly includes the following three situations:

1. Make the "controversial focus" bigger. The focus of the dispute is clearly that A is under A, but A is clicked. For example, in a case of testamentary succession, the plaintiff sued that the house inherited by the will was forcibly occupied by the defendant and asked the defendant to dump the house; The defendant argued that the will held by the plaintiff was invalid and the house belonged to him, and requested the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim. The judge concluded that the focus of the dispute in this case is: Who should own the house?

Then it began to investigate how the defendant occupied the house, who was the heir after the decedent died, whether the plaintiff was the decedent, and what was the relationship between the original defendant and the decedent. It held three meetings and investigated a lot of contents. Finally, the will is valid and the judgment supports the plaintiff's claim. As a result, many things investigated in court are useless. In fact, the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the will is valid.

If the will is valid and executed according to the will, the disputed house shall be owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's claim shall be supported; If the will is invalid, the disputed house will be treated as legal inheritance, and the plaintiff's claim will not be supported. Therefore, the most critical issue in this case is to solve the problem of the validity of the will. The court investigation should also focus on the validity of the will, only checking whether the will is valid, and other issues need not be checked.

In this case, "who should own the house" has been identified as the focus of controversy, and the coverage of this "focus" is large, so the content to be investigated is naturally wide. Of course, solving the ownership of the house will also solve the problem of whether the plaintiff's claim is supported, but to solve the ownership of the house, we must also solve the validity of the will, which is the crux of the dispute and the real "focus" of the dispute. Therefore, the "focus" of the dispute summarized in this case is "big" and does not directly address the real focus.

2. Determine the problems that need to be solved in the judgment results as "the focus of controversy". For example, in a sales contract case, the defendant bought the plaintiff's goods, and part of the payment was unpaid, and the plaintiff sued the defendant to pay the owed payment; The defendant argued that the goods had quality problems and demanded a return. The focus of the dispute summarized by the judge is whether the defendant should pay for the goods. "Whether the defendant should pay for the goods" is the ultimate problem to be solved in the judgment of this case and the purpose to be achieved in the trial activities of this case. Is it the focus of controversy?

I think so, but at least it's not accurate. Because there is a dispute between the original defendant and the defendant on the payment for goods, whether the payment for goods should be paid is the biggest dispute between the two sides, but what is the reason for the dispute? It's the quality of the goods. One party thinks that the goods have quality problems, while the other party thinks that the goods have no quality problems. Therefore, whether the goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant have quality problems is the focus of the dispute in this case, and finding out whether the goods have quality problems is the key to solving whether the defendant should pay for the goods in this case.

3. Not good at decomposing problems and grasping multiple controversial focuses. Although there is only one claim in some cases, there may be multiple controversial focuses, and some judges cannot grasp multiple controversial focuses.

For example, in a labor dispute case, it was originally told that a labor contract was signed with the defendant's enterprise, but the enterprise broke the contract without authorization. He applied to the Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee for arbitration, and the Arbitration Committee decided not to accept it on the grounds that the arbitration period was exceeded, so he sued the court and demanded the defendant to pay economic compensation according to the contract. The defendant replied that the plaintiff's request was unreasonable and asked to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for three reasons. First, the decision of the Arbitration Commission is correct;

Second, the enterprise is an independent legal person and has nothing to do with the defendant; Third, it is correct for the plaintiff to be absent from work without reason and the enterprise to terminate the labor contract. It is not difficult to see that there are three controversial points in this case: first, whether the plaintiff's application for arbitration exceeds the time limit for arbitration, and whether there are reasons for the interruption of the time limit for arbitration; Second, whether the enterprise is an independent legal person;

Third, whether the enterprise violates the contract by terminating the labor contract. However, the judge only summed up a controversial focus in general: whether the defendant is responsible for an enterprise to terminate the plaintiff's labor contract. Summarizing the focus of the dispute in this way is the result of not being good at separating the controversial issues between the two sides and not grasping the focus of the dispute well.

Second, how to grasp the focus of controversy

1. Define what is the "focus of controversy".

The focus of the dispute is the crux of the dispute. When this knot is solved, other problems will be solved. For example, in the first case, why should we focus on "whether the will is valid" instead of "who should own the house"?

There is a simple reason. If the problem of the validity of the will is solved, the problem of house ownership will be solved. To solve the problem of ownership of houses, we must first solve the problem of the validity of wills. The validity of will is a problem that cannot be solved in this case. If we can't solve it, neither can other problems. This is the crux of the dispute and the focus of the dispute.

2. How to find the "controversial focus".

First, sum up experience and learn to grasp the "point". The key to the dispute lies in the "point". As a judge, you should learn to grasp the "point". The focus of the dispute is the "crux" that leads to the dispute, not the superficial dispute. A judge with certain trial experience can quickly find out the "crux" of the dispute between the two sides after hearing the plaintiff's prosecution and the defendant's defense.

Therefore, trial experience is very important, but the large number of cases is not natural, and some judges have not made progress after listening to the cases for half their lives. The important reason is that they are not good at summarizing. It is very necessary for judges to constantly sum up trial experience. With more experience, the ability to solve problems will naturally improve, and finding the "focus of controversy" will naturally be accurate.

The second is to master the "backward method". In middle school, "backward inference" is often used to solve geometry problems, that is, reverse reasoning. Normal reasoning is to draw conclusions according to known conditions, while reverse reasoning is to draw necessary conditions according to conclusions. The use of "backward push" is also an effective way to find the focus of controversy. Or take the previous testamentary succession case as an example: take the plaintiff's claim as the conclusion and push it back. If the conclusion that "the defendant should dump the occupied house" holds.

Then the condition 1: The house belongs to the plaintiff. Is the condition 1 the focus of controversy here? Try pushing again. If you can't push it, it's already the last. The condition 1 is the key point. If we can push it forward, it is not the point. According to the condition 1, we can also introduce condition 2: the will is valid, and the dispute between the original defendant and the house in this case is due to the "will", which is pushed to the end here. It can be seen that "whether the will is valid" is the focus of controversy between the two parties in this case. The thinking mode of "reverse deduction" may be unfamiliar at first glance, but it is enough to use it often.

In short, we should sum up the focus of the dispute based on one principle, and we can see the next trial idea from the determined focus of the dispute, which is convenient for the next court investigation. If the focus of controversy is determined and people don't know where the next court investigation will start, then there may be something wrong with this focus of controversy.

Therefore, an accurate summary of the focus of the dispute is conducive to determining the focus of the trial, correctly guiding the parties to give evidence and cross-examine, thus effectively carrying out trial activities and improving the quality and efficiency of the trial. As a trial judge, it is necessary for him to accurately summarize the focus of controversy in court trials.

The focus of the dispute is judgment 3. As far as the content is concerned, the reasoning part of judgment should usually include five elements:

First, summarize the focus of the dispute; Second, demonstrate whether the disputed legal relationship is established and effective; Third, explain the applicable legal provisions; Fourth, clarify the right and wrong faults and responsibilities of both parties; Fifth, whether it is reasonable to answer the demands or propositions of both parties.

In the Notice on Further Improving the Quality of Judgment Documents (Fa [2009]177) issued by the Supreme People's Court on May 25, 2009, the writing of the reasoning part of judgment documents is expressed as "reasoning is the soul of judgment documents. To enhance the pertinence and thoroughness of reasoning in judgment documents, we must focus on the focus of case disputes, fact finding, evidence acceptance, judgment reasons and legal application, and strive to distinguish between law and reason and win and lose. "

Through the evaluation of the judgment, it is found that the common problems in the reasoning part are: insufficient, opaque and incomplete reasoning; Many judgments are unreasonable or unreasonable, or although reasonable, they are inaccurate and far-fetched;

Some only choose what they need, choose the part that is conducive to the judgment, and don't mention or mention other parts; Some reasoning simply lists the evidence and the law, lacks the analysis of the application of the law, and does not reveal the internal relationship between the evidence, the law and the conclusion. Reasoning, impenetrable and unconvincing; Talking too much will make you seem wordy. How to reason, we should grasp four aspects:

(1) Precise refining. In short, the language is simple, straightforward, unadorned and clear. It contains three meanings: strict use of words, each word and sentence can only have one explanation, and there can be no ambiguity; Appropriate words, no exaggeration, no reduction, no exaggeration, and the content should be consistent with the facts;

Concise and concise, rich in literal meanings, concise and concise, with the fewest words reflecting the richest content. It is not difficult for a judge to make a judgment, but without profound legal literacy and language ability, it is impossible to express his legal knowledge, accumulated theoretical literacy and understanding of law through a judgment.

(2) Reasoning thoroughly and enhancing the persuasiveness of the judgment. Jurisprudence is the soul of reason. The process of applying the law by judges is actually the process of interpreting the law according to the understanding of the law. By explaining the law, the abstract legal provisions become concrete and effective, thus revealing the inevitable and intuitive connection between the legal connotation and the facts of the case, judging the merits of the case, and it is clear at a glance who is right or wrong.

(3) Open the evaluation of evidence to enhance the transparency of reasoning. The publicity of evidence evaluation refers to the inner conviction formed by the judge on the basis of analyzing and judging all the evidence, relying on his own knowledge and experience, and publicly indicating the reasons for the judge's rational judgment and choice, so as to gain the knowledge, understanding and support of the parties and the public. It is both a process of legal reasoning and a process of legal interpretation. The openness of the judge's evaluation evidence reflects the credibility of the judgment reasons.

(D) Careful logic, enhance the rigor of reasoning. Logic is the basic principle that human thinking must abide by. Logical reasoning is to deduce unknown facts from known facts. In fact, the process of a judge judging a case is a process of logical reasoning: legal rules are the major premise, case facts are the minor premise, and the conclusion is the conclusion that the judgment result is deduced according to certain logical methods.

Only by expressing the process of logical reasoning in the judgment can the appeal of the judgment be enhanced. A logical reasoning judgment full of doubts will certainly not win people's respect and trust.

As can be seen from the above analysis, the making of a judgment, like writing an article, has certain principles and no certain rules. Mencius said: "A catalpa maker can follow other people's rules, but he can't make others smart." The "rules" here are knowledge, principles, principles and so on, and "cleverness" is the application and creation of knowledge. The basic principle of writing is the combination of change and neatness, which means the rules to be followed, and the change depends entirely on the wonderful luck of the mind. Knowing the writing of the judgment may not necessarily make a good judgment.

This is the so-called "God knows clearly, but there is only one person." It means the comprehension and understanding of profound things, that is, individuals can use keen wisdom and rely on their own exploration and experience. The same is true of being a referee, which requires that every judge should learn to be good at analysis, research, exploration and summary, make good use of the principles to be followed, and form his own ability in judicial practice. Only in this way can the judgment document become the carrier to show the fair image of the people's court to the society and become a vivid teaching material for legal education.