Abstract: The fact that the facts of administrative violations do not exist is essentially a negative factual judgment. In judicial practice, there is considerable confusion about how the burden of proof should be allocated and what standard of proof should be adopted for the determination of negative facts. To solve the difficult problem of proving the existence or non-existence of the facts of administrative violations by administrative counterparts, it is necessary to adhere to the cognitive model of the balance theory, and fully grasp the balance between supporting administrative organs to administer according to law and safeguarding the lawful rights and interests of administrative counterparts, the doctrine of authority and the doctrine of parties, and the special rules of reversal of the burden of proof in the Administrative Litigation Law and the general rule of the Procedural Law that "whoever asserts shall bear the burden of proof". When an administrative organ has already borne the burden of proof for its lawful performance of its legally-prescribed duties, but the plaintiff still asserts that the administrative counterpart has administrative violations, the plaintiff may be appropriately given the supplementary burden of proof for the existence of the facts of the violation, and the preponderance standard of proof may be adopted. When the truth or falsity of the adjudication facts is unclear, follow the principle of objective burden of proof and determine that the administrative counterpart does not have the facts of administrative violations.