在我国民事诉讼立法中，非法证据排除规则经历了从最高法院发布的1995年批复、到2002年生效的《民事诉讼证据规定》第68条再到2015年生效的《民诉法司法解释》第106条共三次变迁。立法上，对证据排除范围的界定呈现出逐渐缩小的趋势。作为现行排除标准的解释第106条包含严重侵权、违反禁止性法律规定以及严重悖俗三个排除要件，目前，学理上对三要件的内涵、相互关系以及存废等问题尚未达成共识。实务中，对该法条的适用也呈现出较为混乱的状态，具体表现为排除规则的独立适用价值不显著、同案不同判、举证责任分配不一致等问题。导致这些问题产生的主要原因有：因立法表述过于模糊导致基本概念不清、排除标准不清，非法证据排除规则在整个证据评价体系中的位阶不清，个案中的利益权衡与取舍容易受法官个人价值观左右。通过实证分析，笔者发现，在大部分以解释第106条作为裁判依据的案例中，证据效力问题实际上均能够且应当通过适用其他证据效力规范得以解决。因此，现行排除标准在我国司法实务中的适用意义不大，排除标准所涵盖价值的广泛性又使得本应得到重视的问题被忽视。本文认为，未来我国应当在立法上进一步缩小民事诉讼非法证据排除规则的效力范围，并可尝试构建以保护公民隐私权为核心的排除制度。

The exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in Chinese civil litigation has experienced three stages. It firstly showed up as Reply from the Supreme People's Court on the recording of conversation obtained without the consent of others cannot be used as evidence (1995), then came to Article 68 of the evidence regulation in civil proceedings (2002), and finally lies in Article 106 of the application of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China (2015). In legislation, the scope of evidence exclusion has shown a trend of gradually narrowing. Nowadays, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in civil litigation in China includes three domains, which are "serious infringement on the legitimate rights and interests of others", "violation of legal prohibitions" and "serious violation of good customs". At present, there is little consensus on the specific meaning of the three elements. In practice, the application of this law also presents a relatively chaotic state, for example, the independent application value of exclusion rules is not significant, different judgments in similar cases and inconsistent distribution of burden of proof. The main reasons for these problems could be: the basic concepts and exclusion standards are unclear due to the vague legislative expression, the position of the exclusion rules of illegal evidence in the whole evidence evaluation system is unclear, and the balance and choice of interests in a case are easily influenced by the judge's personal values.Through the empirical analysis of the application of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in Chinese civil judicial practice, I find that in most of cases based on the interpretation of Article 106, the problem of evidence effectiveness can and should be solved by applying other norms of evidence effectiveness. Therefore, the application of the current exclusion standard in Chinese judicial practice is of little significance. However, the universality of the value covered by the exclusion standard makes the value which should be paid attention to be ignored. Hence, this paper holds the view that the effectiveness of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in civil litigation in China should be further reduced in the future, and an exclusionary system emphasizing the protection of citizens' privacy may be established.