司法实践中，由于法律适用不统一，有时会出现同类案件不同判决的情况。造成这种情况的主要原因有：（1）中国法律体系的复杂性。（2）各法官的案件分析、法律解释适用方法的不统一。（3）制定民法时未考虑证明问题，而法官对证明责分配拥有强大的裁量权。民法的解释适用需要裁判者关注民法规范的构成要件和法律效果，即真伪不明时也可以适用的民法，本论文称为“裁判规范之民法”；而符合民法的具体事实，本论文称为“要件事实”。并且，民法学的研究同样也需要有意识地从请求权基础理论以及“请求——抗辩”的视角着手。而传统的民法解释学对此却未给予足够的重视。在日本的审判实践，“要件事实论”是不可缺少的审判方法论。现在无论是民事程序法学者还是实体法学者，都不约而同地将目光集中到了该理论，并以此为基础，对传统的民法解释论进行改造，以民法解释论为基础将平面的法律关系转换为立体的攻击防御方法的体系，即以诉讼标的为最终目标，将构成要件转化为法律效果的发生、妨碍、消灭的要件事实，同时通过请求原因、抗辩、再抗辩的概念，使法官和当事人明确地认识每个要件事实的证明责任的所在以及如何展开攻击防御的方法。为了在实际审判中实现证明负担的公平，要件实事论根据民法解释学的最基本的理论即利益衡量论以及立法解释和目的解释，以原则和例外的规范结构，将民法的内涵予以明确。由此，其分析工作具有民法解释学的性质。在民事判决上的判断取决于该诉讼标的各种各样要件事实的配合，因此，要在民事诉讼中做出迅速而恰当的审理判断，要件事实论在本质上是必要的。同时，要件事实论并不是一种万能的理论，在其理论操作过程中需要与相关的民法理论以及民事诉讼法理论保持适当的协调。本论文不仅全面系统地说明要件事实论以及裁判规范之民法学说内容，还以买卖合同纠纷为中心，根据《合同法》以及司法解释和学说具体分析了买卖合同纠纷中的要件事实。本论文的意义在于解决由于法律适用不统一而导致的同类案件不同判决的问题，对国内民法学指出分析民法规范结构的必要性和其具体方法论，以及对法官提出以诉讼标的为最终目的构筑的审判方法论。

There are times when different judges arrive at different verdicts regarding a case. It can be argued that in the Chinese context, this differing interpretation of the law can be traced to 1. complicated laws, 2. lack of uniformity in analyzing and applying laws, 3. too much power on the part of the judge to decide how to distribute the burden of proof. The traditional interpretation and application of civil law needs to take into consideration the constitutive requirements of civil law that the judges can apply in the situation of non liquet. This is that “civil law as norms of decision”, ant it based on “the ultimate facts”. The study of civil law needs to consider starting out from the view of the theory of basis of claim and “the claim and the protest”, too. However, the traditional civil law interpretation science has not put much importance on it. In Japan, in the practical business of judgment, “The theory of ultimate facts ” is absolutely necessary as a methodology of civil judgment. Furthermore, both the scholars of civil procedure and the scholars of Substantive Law have paid attention this theory, and improved the traditional civil law interpretation science using this theory, and transformed Legal relationship form superficial observation into system of "attacking and defending methods" from the view of the plaintiff and defendant based on the civil law interpretation science. This is done by taking the subject matter as the final target, and by making civil law constitutive requirements transform into ultimate facts of occurrence, obstacles or lapses of a legal effect, simultaneously making the judge and litigant clear about the own burden of proof of each ultimate facts and how to attack or defend, through the concept of “Klagegrund（Kg）, Einrede（E）Replik（R）, Duplik（D）etc”. The theory of ultimate fact is a kind of civil law interpretation science, because in order to realize equitable burden of proof sharing in the court, this theory should be based on the Theory of Balance of Interest, Legislative Interpretation and Teleological Method of Interpretation which are the most basic way of legal thinking, and make the intension of civil law clear from the view of the structural norm of “principle and exception”. The civil court decision is decided by a combination of various ultimate facts about a specific subject matter. Therefore, the theory of ultimate facts is absolutely necessary to manage and judge with speed and precision in the civil court. On the other hand, the theory of ultimate facts is not omnipotent, therefore it needs to cooperate with other theories of civil law and civil procedures.This thesis not only explains the detailed contents of the theory of ultimate facts and civil law as norms of decision-making, but also analyzes ultimate facts of purchase contract disputes based on the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, the Supreme People's Court, the Several Issues Concerning Application of the 《PRC, Contract Law》 Interpretation and theory of civil law. In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, this thesis explains the necessity of the study of structural norm of civil law and provides the method for the study of civil law. It provides a methodology of civil judgment, which takes the subject matter as the final target for the judge.