These two basic terms are easy for the parties to misunderstand or one-sidedly understand.
1. The facts are unclear.
That is, the court finds that the facts are unclear, and the court finds out that part of the judgment document through trial. The facts are unclear, divided into 4 situations:
1. Based on the current evidence in the case, the facts are rarely introduced, resulting in an incomplete determination of facts.
2. A number of actual contradictory facts have been introduced, one will involve a fact, and the other will involve a fact, which will be messy and logical.
3. There is a high probability that the facts can be further ascertained by supplementing the evidence, but it is not done, for example, the evidence that should be collected is not collected.
4. Those who can supplement and ascertain the facts of the case through common sense, but have not done so, such as thinking less when they should be thinking.
2. Insufficient evidence.
That is, the fact that can only be deduced by sufficient evidence is deduced by the court with insufficient evidence. This is easy to understand, similar to forcibly drawing a circle, pulling hard, often logical a pot of porridge, less chain in the middle.
Key suggestions: 1. If you don't want the case to be remanded for retrial in the second instance, don't mention the word unclear facts.
2. When there are factual errors and unclear facts at the same time, they are discussed as factual errors, after all, the former itself includes the latter.
3. If you think that your evidence can prove your claim or claim, then you should not say that the evidence in this case is insufficient, at most you should say that the evidence of the other party is insufficient.