Court investigation is a procedure where judicial personnel can become familiar with the basic facts, fully grasp the evidence, and promote the fairness and efficiency of the case. The parties have duty to actively cooperate with the court investigation, and this will help you further confirm the fact of the case to the court. To aid your participation in court investigations, please read the following content carefully.

1.　Definition of Court Investigation

Court investigation refers to litigation activities where under the auspices of judicial personnel, the parties and other litigation participants involved in the case investigate and verify the facts and evidence of the case in accordance with legal procedures.

2. Paying Attention to the main Contents of the Following Court Investigation

2.1 The court promotes the reform of the litigation mechanism centered on trial, and the court investigation is closely related to the pretrial meeting. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant contents of the meeting before the court. The court investigation is not necessarily carried out independently, and the court sometimes merges the court investigation and the debate depending on the circumstances of the case.

2.2 Court investigation is directed against contradictory factual evidence. If the parties present different versions of the facts or evidence recognized in the exchange of evidence or before the court meeting, the court shall order them to provide corresponding evidence. The court will review it in accordance with the parties’　litigation capacity, evidence and specific circumstances of the case.If　the reason is established, it may be added to the contention for trial. The uncontested facts and evidence that have been fixed before the court meeting should be confirmed by the court without the need for investigation and debate. The pre-court meeting and the trial are conducted continuously. The parties are not allowed to repeatedly make the change, increase the claim, counterclaim, apply for additional parties. produce new evidence or apply for evidence from the court.

2.3 Debate the issues. Its order of expansion is as follows: The parties present and impeach evidence on specific points of contention; the parties ask each other questions and answer them, inquire in the collegiate　panel; the parties debate opinions on specific points of contention. In the case of evidence of state secrets, trade secrets and personal privacy, the collegiate panel shall, depending on the circumstances, decide whether or not to present it to interested parties. If the evidence need to be presented, it cannot be presented at the public hearing. Instead, it may be presented without the presence of the auditor, or after the direct transformation from a public hearing to a non-public hearing and then resented in court.

2.4 Summarize statements and seek opinions. After debating all issues, the parties shall make a summary statement of all points of contention. After the concluding remarks of the parties, the presiding judge shall consult the final opinions of the parties in turn, and then ask whether the parties are willing to mediate in court. If the parties accept mediation in court, they will all appear in court.

3. Notification of the Following Items

3.1 The case that is not heard in public and persons who have nothing to do with the case shall not be involved in court investigation.

3.2 Any party or any litigant participant who participates in a court investigation shall abide by the discipline of the court and obey the command of the judicial personnel; in the event of disturbing the order of the court, judicial personnel may reprimand the behaviour in accordance with relevant regulations　order him/her to leave the court, impose a fine on him or detain him..

3.3 All the parties’　evidence shall be presented and impeached at the court’s investigation stage, and the evidence presented by the court after the investigation of the case is be inadmissible.

3.4　Cases Management Office only supports pre-litigation mediation in principle, but it may act as a mediator in accordance with the mediation scheme proposed by the parties concerned　in litigation..

3.5 The parties concerned should express their opinions around the controversial focus of the court’s induction.