夫妻一方对外举债的性质认定

发布时间：2018-03-12 06:18

本文选题：一方举债　切入点：共同债务　出处：《郑州大学》2016年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：在市场经济越发繁荣的背景下,夫妻参与经济活动愈发频繁,并时常与他人发生债权债务纠纷,特别是关涉到夫妻一方对外举债的性质认定,争议日渐激烈。准确认定债务性质是属共同债务还是个人债务,成为实践中的难点,这其中既需体现对夫妻独立人格的尊重和夫妻财产的保护,又需彰显债权人的利益,保护交易安全和秩序。《婚姻法》和《婚姻法司法解释(二)》均对此问题做出规定,由此形成了“用途论”和“推定论”两种不同的裁判标准,造成了裁判者在具体适用时的尴尬境地。因此,为公平合理的处理夫妻一方对外举债的性质认定问题,应注重区分夫妻债务的内部和外部关系,在离婚案件和债权人起诉的债权债务纠纷案件中分别适用《婚姻法》和《婚姻法司法解释(二)》的规定,并辅之以科学的举证责任分配规则,以寻求案件的实质公正。本文的结构如下:第一章从实践中关于夫妻一方对外举债的典型案例入手,通过表格形式对于上述案例类型予以梳理,提出夫妻一方对外举债的实践困境。第二章着重分析了夫妻一方因个人行为产生债务的两种可能性质即共同债务和个人债务,将二者的概念和特征予以说明,并提出了区分二者的实质性标准,即该债务是否为夫妻双方合意和夫妻双方是否分享了该债务的利益。第三章指出实践中债务性质认定困惑缘于《婚姻法》和《婚姻法司法解释(二)》不同的裁判标准,即“用途论“和“推定论”,并对两标准进行深入的理论分析。第四章提出单独适用“用途论“和“推定论”均会导致利益的不均衡分配,故应另辟新径,区分夫妻债务内部认定规则和外部认定规则。第五章是从夫妻债务的内部关系入手,明确在离婚案件中,应当适用《婚姻法》第41条之规定,凡夫妻一方将个人举债用于共同生活之目的,那么该项债务应定性为夫妻共同债务,由举债方承担债务用途的证明责任。若证据不充分,则认定为举债方个人债务,配偶方不承担债务的清偿责任。第六章是从夫妻债务的外部关系分析,在债权人起诉夫妻一方或者双方承担债务的案件中,判定债务性质时应适用《婚姻法司法解释(二)》第24条的推定规则,将债务性质推定为共同债务,优先保障债权人的利益。若配偶方能有效举证该规则的两种例外情况,或者债务并未用于夫妻双方的共同生活,则债务性质为举债方个人债务,配偶方不负担债务的偿还责任。结语部分是在综合上文的基础上,总结甄别夫妻一方对外举债性质的新思路,既包括实体性规范同时也要加强程序方面的保障。
[Abstract]:Under the background of more prosperous market economy, husband and wife participate in economic activities more and more frequently, and often have debt disputes with others, especially related to the nature of external borrowing of one spouse. The dispute is becoming increasingly fierce. It has become a difficult point in practice to determine exactly whether the nature of debt is a joint debt or a personal debt, which should not only reflect the respect for the husband and wife's independent personality and the protection of the husband and wife's property, but also highlight the interests of the creditors. Protection of transaction safety and order. Both the Marriage Law and the Judicial interpretation of the Marriage Law (2) provide for this issue, which leads to the formation of two different adjudication standards: the "theory of use" and the "theory of presumption". Therefore, in order to deal with the problem of determining the nature of one spouse's external debt, we should pay attention to the distinction between the internal and external relationship of the husband and wife debt. The provisions of the Marriage Law and the Judicial interpretation of the Marriage Law (II) shall be applied to the divorce cases and the creditor's litigation cases respectively, supplemented by scientific rules on the distribution of the burden of proof. In order to seek the substantive justice of the case. The structure of this paper is as follows: the first chapter starts with the typical cases of the husband and wife borrowing from abroad in practice, and combs the above cases through the form of tables. In the second chapter, the author analyzes the two possible properties of the debt caused by the personal behavior of the husband and wife, that is, the common debt and the personal debt, and explains the concepts and characteristics of the two kinds of debt. And put forward the substantive standard to distinguish the two, The third chapter points out that the confusion of the nature of the debt in practice is due to the different judgment standards of the Marriage Law and the Judicial interpretation of the Marriage Law (2). That is, "utility theory" and "presumption theory". Chapter 4th puts forward that the application of "use theory" and "presumption theory" alone will lead to the uneven distribution of benefits, so we should create a new way. Chapter 5th begins with the internal relationship between husband and wife debt, and makes it clear that the provisions of Article 41 of the Marriage Law shall be applied in divorce cases. Where one of the spouses uses an individual's debt for the purpose of living together, the debt shall be characterized as a joint debt of the husband and wife, and the debtor shall bear the burden of proof of the purpose of the debt. If the evidence is insufficient, the debt shall be deemed to be the personal debt of the borrower, The spouse does not bear the obligation to pay off the debt. Chapter 6th is an analysis of the external relationship of the husband and wife's debt, in the case of a creditor suing one or both of the spouses to bear the debt, In determining the nature of the debt, the presumption rule of Article 24 of the Marriage Law (2) shall be applied, the nature of the debt shall be presumed as a common debt, and the interests of the creditors shall be given priority. If the spouse can effectively prove the two exceptions to the rule, Or if the debt is not used for the common life of the husband and wife, the debt is in the nature of the individual debt of the borrower, and the spouse is not liable for the repayment of the debt. The conclusion is based on the above. This paper summarizes a new way of identifying the nature of a spouse's external borrowing, which includes both substantive norms and procedural safeguards.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D923.9

【相似文献】