本文之焦點在於探討舉證責任之概念本質及其分配基準。奠基於「訴訟上之證明乃係提出證據使法官之心證達到證明度水準」，本文以「舉證責任」及「證明度」間之連結關係切入，論證舉證責任之概念實兼具「當事人提出證據」之行為責任與「未達證明度標準之不利益分配」之結果責任之雙重性格。然後傳統學說不同者，本文認為證據提出之行為責任並非僅為客觀舉證責任在訴訟程度中之投影，而係有其獨自之意義與規範機能。作為統合此二不同性格之舉證責任概念的基本架構，本文提出「階段的舉證責任論」之初步構想。 本文進一步反省向來在未意識到作為行為責任之舉證責任分配與作為結果責任之舉證責任分配可能不同之學說下，逕行討論「訴訟法上之觀點及考慮」應否影響舉證責任分配之思考方式之不當。本文主張客觀舉證責任之證明度標準及其分配，記由實體法之立法旨趣及政策考慮加以決定；而作為證據提出行為責任之舉證責任分配，則應兼由訴訟法上之觀點加以決定。 本文所提出之「階段的舉證責任論」，不僅可改正向來舉證責任概念無法對當事人於訴訟程度中提出證據之行為責任進行合理規制之缺點，亦可明確區皆實體法之政策與訴訟法之觀點就舉證責任分配所應發生作用之場域。同時，在近年來為解決當事人在現代型訴訟所面臨之證明困難問題而發展出之「事案解明義務」、「證明妨礙」及「表見證明」等概念，亦可均統合於此「階段的舉證責任論」的架構之下。最後，階段的舉證責任論不僅得在我國新民事訴訟法第二七七條尋得解釋論之依據，其運作亦有助於新民事訴訟法課予當事人就具體爭點內容為形成、特定之責任所期待發揮機能之達成。

This article purports to examine the nature of the burden of proof and its allocation rules. Based upon the premise that proof in litigation is a process of producing evidence to persuade the judge by the applicable standard of proof, this article analyzes the interrelation between the burden of proof and the standard of proof and argues that the burden of proof concept contains not only the burden of production but also the risk of non-persuasion. Contrary to the traditional continental burden of proof theory, this article argues that the burden of production is not merely ancillary to the burden of persuasion but has its own meaning and purpose. In order to accommodate the burden of production and the burden of persuasion, this article proposes a new theory of differentiating the burden of proof by litigation phases. This article criticizes the traditional theory’s unreasonableness to allocate the burden of proof without differentiating the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. The articles argue that the allocation of the burden of persuasion is a function of the substantive law while the allocation of the burden of production should take procedural factors into consideration. The theory of differentiating the burden of proof by litigation phases not only can regulate parties’ procedural conduct regarding producing evidence but also can clearly explain how the substantive policies and procedural factors work to determine the different allocations of the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Moreover, the proposed theory provides a framework to accommodate the concepts of the duty of elucidation, spoliation of evidence and prima facie evidence, which are developed in recent years to deal with the asymmetrical distribution of evidence problem in the so-called modern litigation. Finally, the new theory can find strong support under Article 277 in the amended Code of Civil Procedure in 2000 and works to accomplish the new Code’s goals by regulating parties to conduct litigation in good faith and narrow the factual issues.