证据是民事诉讼中的核心和基础，而“新的证据”制度作为证据制度中的一部分发挥着重要的作用。我国最早在《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》（以下简称《证据规定》）中设立了举证时限制度，2012年修改后的《民事诉讼法》吸收了《证据规定》中的有益之处，在法律中规定了举证时限制度，标志着证据适时提出主义制度在我国法律中的正式确立。而“新的证据”制度作为举证时限制度的补充，弥补了证据失权导致的实体不公。但在实践中“新的证据”制度适用比较混乱，一方面是立法上的不明确导致法官无所适从，另一方面还在于缺乏相关配套制度。要构建一个适合我国国情的“新的证据”制度，要立足我国实际情况，考虑相关因素，确保该制度设置的正当性和合理性。本文从“新的证据”的法律条文入手，综合运用多种方法，分析了我国“新的证据”制度的概念与特点，探讨新的证据制度在诉讼公正和诉讼效率之间的平衡，借鉴国外的相关经验和理念，结合我国的政治、经济、文化等具体国情，来思考如何完善我国的新的证据制度。本文共分为五个部分：第一部分阐明了“新的证据”的一般原理，包括概念、特征，以及与举证时限制度的关系。第二部分从立法角度看，梳理了《民事诉讼法》修改前后对于“新的证据”的相关规定，厘清一审、二审、再审及可视为“新的证据”的内涵。第三部分从价值层面探讨“新的证据”制度存在的正当性与合理性。从直观层面来说，设置举证时限制度的目的是提高诉讼效率，“新的证据”制度是为了维护审判公正，它是发端于程序正义与实体真实之间对立统一关系的一种平衡物。第四部分以美、德两国为例，对比分析了英美法系与大陆法系关于“新的证据”制度的相关规定和理念。通过对比可以发现不管是英美法系还是大陆法系都未排除“新的证据”的适用，但由于各国不同的法律传统、法治环境等的差异，表现形式又各有特点。因此，我们应在立足我国基本国情的情况下，充分吸收借鉴国外的立法理念及相关制度。第五部分为我国“新的证据”制度的完善。由于我国不具备实行严苛的“新的证据”规则的现实条件，所以应建立宽松明确的“新的证据”规则，并完善相应的配套制度。

Evidence is the core and foundation of civil action, and the "new evidence" system plays an important role as a part of evidence system. Supreme People's Court's Several Rules in Civil Procedural Evidence sets up the time limit of evidence production and prescribes the effect of not providing evidence on time. The new civil procedure in 2012 Absorbed the benefits of the evidence rules. Mark inducing evidence at limit time established in our country law. But in practice, the "new evidence" system meeting into confusion in application of law. one aspect is legislation is indeterminate, which lead to Judges don’t know what to do. On the other hand, the relevant supporting system is absent. This situation can easily lead to the emergence of a large number of new evidence which affects the efficiency of the trial, the establishment of the proof limitation system would not achieve the purpose. In order to construct the “new evidence” system which is suitable for Chinese situation,we should consider related actors reasonably.This paper is divided into five parts: the first part expounds the general theory of the new evidence, including the concept, characteristics, and the relationship with the time limit system of evidence production. The second part from the legislative point of view, sort out the "Civil Procedure Law" before and after modification of the "new evidence" of the relevant provisions, to clarify the first or second instance and retrial and can be regarded as the connotation of "new evidence". The third part from the perspective of value to explore the legitimacy and rationality of the existence of new evidence system. From the intuitive level, set the time limit system of evidence production is to improve the efficiency of the proceedings, the "new evidence" system is to maintain the judicial justice, it is a kind of balance between the procedural justice and substantive originated from the real relationship of the unity of opposites. The fourth part to the United States, Germany as an example, a comparative analysis of the relevant provisions of the "new evidence" in Anglo American law system and continental law system and the concept of. By contrast can be found in both common law and civil law are not excluded from "new evidence", but because of the difference of legal tradition, different countries under the rule of law environment, form of expression and the characteristics of. Therefore, we should be based on China's basic situation, drawing lessons from the foreign legislative idea and system. The fifth part is to perfect China's "new evidence" of the system. Due to the practical conditions of our country does not have a strict rule of "new evidence" should be established, so loose specific rule of "new evidence", and perfect the corresponding system.