论文部分内容阅读
本文以广东珠江典当公司诉广州南方公证处案为例,探讨公证机构是否应当对公证申请人的真实身份进行实质性审查的问题。经过对公证机构的实质性审查权和形式性审查权的分析,借鉴国外对审查权的规定,得出我国公证机构应当对公证事项进行实质性审查的结论。通过程序性规范以及公证人员的阐明权和经验法则的运用,公证机构的实质性审查权才能实现。但是实质性审查并不等于客观真实,如果公证机构已经达到了“谨慎、勤勉”的审查标准,则无需承担公证不实的责任。
This paper takes the case of Guangdong Zhujiang Pawn Company v. Guangzhou Southern Notary Office as an example to discuss whether the notarial office should conduct a substantive examination of the true identity of the notary applicant. After analyzing the substantive examination right and the formal examination right of the notary office, referring to the foreign regulations on the examination right, it is concluded that the notary office in China should make a substantive examination of the notarized matter. Through procedural norms and the notarization personnel and the use of the rules of thumb, the substantive examination of the notary public can be realized. However, the substantive examination does not mean that the objective truth is true. If the notary office has reached the cautious and diligent examination standard, it will not be necessary to assume notarial responsibility.