Abstract: Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court in 2019 mandates that cross-examination of appraisal opinions shall be conducted through a structured process. Initially, the parties must submit a written application. Following the appraiser’s written response, if the parties maintain objections, they may request court testimony by. This written response serves as a prerequisite for the appraiser’s in-court testimony. However, in practice, numerous issues may arise in the implementation of this provision, including the ambiguity of the reply letters, the lack of clear rationale for their acceptance, the absence of standardized formats, the poor relevance of the content, and the lack of coordination between the application process and the existing procedures. These issues significantly impede the efficacy of the reply letters. As a reformative measure, the reply letter system aims to enhance the cross-examination of appraisal opinions, offering additional options for judges and litigants. To address these challenges, it is imperative to refine existing laws and regulations while fostering collaboration between the judiciary and appraisal institutions to improve the quality of reply letters.

Key words:  , appraisal opinion, reply letter, civil evidence, appraiser court testimony

摘要： 2019年《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》规定鉴定意见在庭审质证前，当事人应当先提出书面申请，鉴定人给与书面回复后，当事人仍然有异议再通知鉴定人出庭，将书面回复设定为鉴定人出庭的前置程序。但现实在适用这一规定时，有着诸多问题，突出表现为答复函属性模糊，采信说理不清，形式要件缺乏规范，内容关联性差以及适用过程与现有程序无法合理衔接等。这一系列问题严重影响答复函功能的正常实现。答复函是鉴定意见质证模式的改革探索，为法官和当事人提供更多选择。对此，一方面通过制定和完善现有法律法规来解决，另一方面需要法庭和鉴定机构共同努力，通过提升答复函质量实现答复函的功能。

关键词: 鉴定意见, 答复函, 民事证据, 鉴定人出庭