关键词: 民事诉讼, 鉴定意见不明确, 鉴定人出庭费用

Abstract: Article 39 of The Provision of Civil Evidence promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court in 2019 stipulates that an appraiser who issues an“unclear” appraisal opinion shall bear the costs of appearing in court. Scholars have yet to reach a consensus on the meaning of “unclear” and the standards by which it should be judged, while in practice, the rules governing the allocation of court appearance costs are also applied inconsistantly. Judicial appraisal lies at the intersection of scientific technology and legal practice. To bridge the knowledge gap for judges and correctly determine specialized issues in litigation, judicial decisions often hold high expectations for the certainty of appraisal opinions. However, the scientific nature of appraisals means they inherently tolerate objectively uncertain conclusions. From a unified perspective, the interpretative boundary of the “clarity” of appraisal opinions should be set as compliance with appraisal standards and possessing value for litigation proof. Under the current legislative framework, the “clarity” of appraisal opinions can be further deconstructed into normative, relevance, sufficiency of reasoning, and usefulness. In practice, the “unclear” nature of appraisal opinions can be identified by inversely establishing “clarity” review standards, forming a four-tier review framework: “consistency of expression, specificity of conclusion, sufficiency of reasoning and functionality of proof 

Key words: civil proceeding；unclear appraisal opinion, appraiser’s court appearance