As a common form of evidence in civil litigation, circumstantial evidence constitutes an indirect way of proof according to the rule of experience and reasoning, which is the main means of proving the facts of a case in civil litigation. Because of the diversification of the object of proof, the uncertainty of probative force and the complexity of the way of proving facts, the courts take a cautious, doubtful, and even exclusive attitude towards circumstantial evidence. The courts either simply exclude it by the exclusion rules of evidence or the rule of less probative force, or directly apply the rule of burden of proof to adjudicate cases with evidence that can't prove the facts of the case. Therefore, for circumstantial evidence, we should first make it clear that it can only be limitedly excluded based on the credibility rules of evidence, the application of the less probative force rule on common-sense circumstantial evidence should be limited and the abuse of the authenticity rules should be concerned, and the courts should be required to reasonably analyze the problems of contradictory circumstantial evidence. More importantly, on the basis of the specific types of indirect proof, such as the mode of evidence ring and the mode of evidence chain, we should clarify the requirements of the empirical rules on the basis of presumption, determine the diversified mode of indirect proof of facts, and endow circumstantial evidence with the important role in proving subjective facts such as fraud and coercion. Then when the court faces circumstantial evidence, it can rely on discretional evaluation of evidence to determine the facts, which makes the civil judgment based on the normative and rigorous examination and identification of evidence.