《行政诉讼法》第38条第2款规定了在行政赔偿、补偿案件中原告对损害事实提供证据，因被告原因导致原告无法举证的由被告承担举证责任，该条款首次以法律的形式确认了证明妨碍情形下原告举证责任的转移，以更好地保护弱势群体的合法权益，倒逼行政机关依法行政，严格依照法定程序执法。但是，由于该条款属于框架性规定，线条过于粗疏，留下了很多有待更一步解释的空间。司法实践中各地法院对该法条的理解也存在很大的分歧，对原告举证责任转移制度的研究不够深入，同案不同判的现象比较严重，往往导致出现当事人赢得诉讼却输了赔偿的尴尬局面。通过从法条涵义和法理依据两方面对《行政诉讼法》第38条第2款的具体构造进行分析，并结合1488份判决文书的分析解读，得出该条款在具体的司法实践中出现不同认识是由于以下几种原因：首先，在行政赔偿案件中，在特殊情形下原告应当对损害的事实提供初步证据，但在证明对象的认定上无法取得一致，除证明对象外，由原告初步举证的证明对象的证明标准认定在审理中也出现了分歧；其次，在证明妨碍的认定上“被告的原因”过于宽泛，实践中不具有可操作性；再次，“无法举证”的程度在实践中难以认定，且在被告违反法定程序义务的情形下原告方如果也存在过错是否发生举证责任的转移尚未明确；最后，举证责任转移到被告一方之后证明标准要达到何种程度，倘若被告也无法举证时如何进行司法救济在审理过程中亦有所不同。《行政诉讼法》第38条第2款的运用在实践中遭遇的窘境有着多方面的原因，其中法规范过于粗疏，相关法解释的缺失是造成这一困扰的根本原因。基于此，笔者从拟定法解释的路径来填补该条款留下的空白，明确《行政诉讼法》第38条第2款的具体构造，建立类型化的模式来增强司法的可操作性，同时在司法上强化法官心证公开，注重法官释明义务的履行，实现实质上的个案正义。

The Article 38 Section 2 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that the plaintiff shall provide evidence for the fact of damage in administrative compensation cases. if the plaintiff is unable to provide evidence owing to the defendant, the defendant shall bear the burden of proof. The article is the first time to confirm the transfer of the plaintiff’s burden of proof under the obstruction of evidence in the form of law, so as to protect the lawful rights and interests of vulnerable groups and force the administrative organ to comply with the legal procedures. However, the provision is too extensive and remains lots of blank for further explanation. The research on the transfer of burden proof of the plaintiff is not deep enough. The application standards of courts, in judicial practice, are different in different places. And the application that transfers the plaintiff’s the burden of proof is also different, which always lead to the embarrassing situation that the parties win the lawsuit but lose the compensation.Based on the analysis of the connotation and the legal basis of the Article 38 Section 2 of the Administrative Procedure Law, and the analysis of 1488 judgement documents, the paper concludes that there are different understandings of the article in the specific judicial practice due to the following reasons: first of all, the plaintiff should provide preliminary evidence for the damage under special circumstances, but there is no agreement on the determination of the object of the proof and on the proof standard for the object of proof preliminarily adduced by the plaintiff in the trial. Secondly, the regulation of “the cause of the defendant” is too general to be operable. Thirdly, the degree of “unable to provide evidence” is hard to be determined in practice, and if the plaintiff’s fault also exists when the defendant violates the procedural obligation of the law, whether the plaintiff's burden of proof will be transferred is not clear. Finally, after that the burden of proof is transferred to the defendant, the degree of proof standard and how to carry out judicial relief if the defendant is unable to provide evidence are also different in the trial process.There are many reasons for the dilemma in the practice of the application of the Article 38 Section 2 of the Administrative Procedure Law, among which the lack of interpretation of relevant laws is the root cause. Based on this, the author tries to fill in the blank left by this clause from the path of drafting law interpretation. Specifically, it is necessary to clarify the specific structure of the Article 38 Section 2 of the Administrative Procedure Law, establish a typed model to enhance the operability of the judiciary, and pay more attention to the performance of judges’ interpretation obligations to realize the substantial justice of individual cases.