最高法院於2010年所作成有關民事訴訟法之裁判中，有二類裁判值得注目。其一涉及突襲性裁判之型態及其如何防止。其二涉及舉證責任之性質及其如何分配。就前者而言，最高法院認知認定事實及適用法律雖係法院職責（權），但不能因而對當事人造成法律適用的突襲、發現真實的突襲及促進訴訟的突襲。為防止發生該等突襲，要求事實審法院應適時曉諭其法律上、事實上及證據上觀點，使當事人有及時為法律上、事實上陳述、證據上聲明及適當、完全辯論之機會；尤其應致力於爭點整理並曉諭爭點，包括法律上爭點、事實上爭點及證據上爭點，適時、適度公開心證、表明法律見解，與當事人進行法律上、事實上及證據上討論、對話，確認及促成協議簡化爭點。就後者而言，最高法院肯認舉證責任乃當事人提出證據以證明其所主張利己事實之行為責任，並從兼顧實體法上觀點及訴訟法上觀點以分配舉證責任，不僅考量各該事件類型就某系爭事項所需求保護實體利益之大小，且同時考量其所需求保護程序利益之大小，然後比較衡量而謀求其間之平衡點，據以分配舉證責任於兩造間。因此，依各該具體訴訟事件類型特徵及待證事實之性質，或要求主張利己事實之一造就其事實負舉證責任，或降低證明度以減輕該主張利己事實者之舉證上負擔，或轉換舉證責任而要求他造證明其反對事實。

Among the judgments Supreme Court made in 2010, there are two types of judgments worth paying close attention. One is about the types of surprising judgments and how to prevent it from happening. The other is about the character of the burden of proof and how to distribute the burden. About the former, Supreme Court holds that even finding facts and applying law are the discretion of court, court should still prevent surprising judgment resulting no matter from the process of applying law, fact finding or from the aim of acceleration of suit. In order to prevent the surprising judgments, trier of fact should timely announce the views of law or fact. In this way, parties would have chance to make statements of law or fact and elaborate it thoroughly and appropriately to respond the court. Especially, court should devote in clarifying the issues, including the issues of law and fact. Besides, court should also declare their mental impressions and opinions and further discuss with parties. Lastly, court should confirm the issues with parties and try to reach agreement simplifying issues. About the latter, Supreme Court affirms the character of burden of proof is a responsibility of behavior. In other word, a party bears the burden of proof with regard to the facts which he/she alleges in his/her favor. Besides, the court claims that when attributing the burden of proof, court should in the same time take substantive and procedural views into account. For example, in concrete cases, court should not only concern the interest in substantive law, but also the procedural interest involved. Among the substantive and procedural interest, court should try their best to strike the balance between them. Therefore, distributing the burden of proof would verify every single and specific case. Depending on the features and character of the case, it can be possible to let party who alleges in his favor to bear the burden of proof, while it is also possible to lower the degree of prove to lessen the burden of the party alleging in his favor or even switch the burden of proof to otherwise make the opposite party to bear the burden.