本文以举证责任的分配为视角，对股东代表诉讼进行了研究。首先，本文对股东代表诉讼的请求权基础及其要件事实进行了分析，并根据被告的不同将股东代表诉讼分为了三类（本文重点考察第一、第二类股东代表诉讼的举证责任分配）：第一，以董事、经理等公司内部人为被告的股东代表诉讼。在该类诉讼中，由于被告与公司之间具有委托合同关系，被告对公司负有勤勉义务和忠实义务，因此，当被告违反相应义务的情形下，原告股东享有两个竞合的请求权，即债务不履行的损害赔偿请求权和侵权损害赔偿请求权。第二，以控股股东为被告的股东代表诉讼，在该类诉讼中，原告股东仅能主张侵权损害赔偿请求权，因为股东与公司之间不存在法律意义上的合同关系。第三，以其他人为被告的股东代表诉讼。在此基础上，本文运用罗森贝克“规范说”的理论，对股东代表诉讼的举证责任进行了一般分配。其次，本文对“勤勉义务违反”和“忠实义务违反”这两个要件事实的举证责任分配进行了特殊考察。就“勤勉义务违反”而言，由于股东代表诉讼的特殊结构，证明被告违反勤勉义务的相关证据原件大都保存在由被告控制的公司（第三人）中，原告股东存在举证困难。同时，由作为被告的董事、经理对其决策的合法性、合理性作出说明也相对比较容易。在进一步比较分析了美国公司法的相关规定和制度实践后，笔者认为，应由被告对其没有违反勤勉义务承担举证责任（证明其行为符合“善良管理人”的注意标准）。就“忠实义务违反”而言，应当由被告对程序性免责要件（如自我交易是否违反公司章程、是否经有关公司机关的同意、追认）承担举证责任，同时在法律或司法解释中规定“公平”（fairness）要件并由被告承担该要件的举证责任。

This article has studied the shareholder derivative suit from the perspective of allocation of burden of proof. This article firstly analyzed the rules and elements that can support the claims the shareholder and then put them into three types(this article focused on the first and second type): the first one is the derivative suit with the defendant of directors or managers of the corporation. Under this circumstance, the shareholders get two claims, which are breach of contract and tort liability. However, they can only choose one of the claims. The second one is the derivative suit with the defendant of controlling shareholders. Under this circumstance, the shareholders can only claim the tort liability instead of breach of contract, because there is no legal contract between corporation and its shareholders. The third one is the derivative suit with the defendant of others. Under the theory of Leo Rosenberg, this article suggests the general rule for the allocation of burden of proof of the derivative suit. Then,this article specifically studied how the burden of proof of the two specific elements “breach of duty of care”and “breach of duty of loyaty” should be allocated. For the “breach of duty of care”, this article suggests that the “insiders” have the burden of proof to persuade the judges that they have made a decision with the care that an ordinary prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstanc.,because it would be easier for the defendant to produce the evidence and to explain the legitimicy and reasonableness of the business decision they have made.For the “breach of duty of loyalty”, this article suggests the burden of proof of the facts in related to procedure relied on the defendant. And the law or judicial interpretation should establish the “fairness” for the defendant to discharge its responsibility.