Abstract: Although self-commissioned appraisal widely exists in our country, the current legislation does not clearly indicate its nature, the definition of  “quasi private document certificate” in cross-examination rules reserves the room for academic discussion. In the theoretical circle, there are opposing views on the nature of the opinion issued by a self-commissioned appraiser: is it factual statement or statutory evidence, where the latter has the different views as expert opinion, witness testimony and documentary evidence. In practice, there are some errors in handling the problem of self-entrusted appraisal, such as simplification of judgment view, avoidance of making clear its nature, misinterpretation of provisions and abuse of burden of proof. Based on the re-thinking and examination of theoretical differences and errors in judgment, this paper argues that self-commissioned appraisal has the dual attributes of fact assertion and evidence, and the latter is more significant. Furthermore, it is argued that opinions issued by self-commissioned appraisal should not be regarded as statutory appraisal opinions in principle, but can be converted by exception upon the consent of the parties. In the absence of consent from the parties, it may be permitted to use similar appraisal opinions for cross-examination certification. At the same time, in order to effectively avoid errors in judgment, regulations regarding burden of proof, conditions for application of appraisal, the adoption of written opinions and other issues relating to self-entrusted appraisal should be comprehensively improved, so as to better understand and apply Article 41 of the 2019 revised Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation on the basis of systematic interpretation.

Key words: self-commissioned appraisal, theoretical differences, error of judgment, re-thinking and reconstruction

摘要： 自行委托鉴定现象在我国广泛存在，然而现行立法并未对其行为明确指明定性，“准用私文书证”质证规则的释义更是预留了探讨的空间。理论界对自行委托鉴定意见之性质存在事实主张说与法定证据说的对立观点，而后者更是存在鉴定意见、证人证言及书证的多元分歧。实务运行在自行委托鉴定问题处理上存在裁判观点简单化、回避性质定位、曲解规定文义、滥用举证责任等裁判误区。在对理论分歧与裁判误区反思与检视的基础上，主张自行委托鉴定具有事实主张与证据证明的双重属性，且证据证明层面的意义更加显著。进而主张自行委托出具的意见原则上不宜视为法定鉴定意见，但经当事人合意可例外转换。在缺乏当事人合意时，可准用与其类似的鉴定意见进行质证认证。同时，为有效避免裁判误区，对举证责任分配、申请鉴定条件、书面意见采纳等关涉自行委托鉴定的有关问题进行全面完善，以期在体系解释的基础上更好地理解与适用2019年修改的《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第四十一条。

关键词: 自行委托鉴定, 理论分歧, 裁判误区, 反思重构