华北电力大学学报(社会科学版)

行政违法事实不存在本质上属于一种否定性的事实判断。司法实践中，对于否定性事实的认定应当如何分配举证责任、采用何种证明标准均存在不小的困惑。破解行政相对人行政违法事实存在与否的证明难题，应当坚持平衡论的认知模式，充分把握支持行政机关依法行政与维护行政相对人合法权益、职权主义与当事人主义、行政诉讼法举证责任倒置特殊规则与诉讼法“谁主张、谁举证”一般规则之间的平衡关系。当行政机关已对其依法履行法定职责承担举证责任，但原告仍主张行政相对人存在行政违法事实时，可以适当课予原告对违法事实存在的补充证明责任，并采用优势证明标准。当裁判事实真伪不明时，遵循客观举证责任原则，认定行政相对人的行政违法事实不存在。

It is essentially a negative factual judgment that the facts of administrative violations do not exist. In judicial practice, there is considerable confusion about how the burden of proof should be allocated and what standard of proof should be adopted for the determination of negative facts. To solve the difficult problem of proving the existence or non-existence of the facts of administrative violations by administrative counterparts, it is necessary to adhere to the cognitive model of the balance theory, and fully grasp the balance between supporting administrative organs to administer according to law and safeguarding the lawful rights and interests of administrative counterparts, the doctrine of authority and the doctrine of parties, and the special rules of reversal of the burden of proof in the Administrative Litigation Law and the general rule of the Procedural Law that "whoever asserts shall bear the burden of proof". When an administrative organ has already borne the burden of proof for its lawful performance of its legally-prescribed duties, but the plaintiff still asserts that the administrative counterpart has administrative violations, the plaintiff may be appropriately given the supplementary burden of proof for the existence of the facts of the violation, and the preponderance standard of proof may be adopted. When the truth or falsity of the adjudication facts is unclear, it is required to follow the principle of objective burden of proof and determine that the administrative counterpart does not have the facts of administrative violations.