Adjudication Rules for Disputes over Joint Debts between Husband and Wife (I) (Revised in May 2024)

Adjudication Rules for Disputes over Joint Debts of Husband and Wife (1)

Revised May 2024

01. Reference case: The debt guaranteed by one husband and wife for the other party should be the joint debt of the husband and wife - Zhang XX v. Sun XX and Zhao XX Private Loan Dispute Case

[Summary of the trial]:

The provision of security by one spouse for the debts of the other party is essentially the knowledge, consent and decision of the spouse for the formation of the debt, which is the embodiment of the equal right of the husband and wife to dispose of the joint property and joint debts, indicating that the husband and wife have fully considered the occurrence and burden of the debt, and the creditor also has reason to believe that the two of them have a common intention for the formation and burden of the debt. Therefore, the debts guaranteed by one spouse for the other party conform to the basic principle of "joint debt and joint signature" and should be regarded as joint debts formed by the joint intention of the husband and wife.

[Reasons for the trial]:

The effective judgment of the court held that: Zhao Moumou signed at the "guarantor" of the IOU, which showed that Zhao Moumou knew the fact of Sun Moumou's loan and agreed to be bound by the debt, and Sun Moumou did not infringe on Zhao Moumou's right to know and consent, on the contrary, Zhao Moumou provided a guarantee for the loan, which can better show that the husband and wife have fully considered the occurrence and burden of the loan and enjoy the right to deal with it equally, and the creditor Zhang Moumou also has reason to believe that the two of them have a common intention to form and burden the debt. The debts of the husband and wife in the form of a common intention to jointly sign the debt, or the debts borne by one of the husband and wife in their own name for the daily needs of the family during the existence of the marital relationship constitute joint debts of the husband and wife, and the debts in this case are joint debts of the husband and wife, which shall be jointly repaid by Sun XX and Zhao XX.

[Case Number] :(2021) Lu 1312 Min Chu No. 3283

02. Reference case: Case of a village committee applying to add Xie as the person subject to enforcement

[Summary of the trial]:

The addition of a person subject to enforcement in the enforcement procedure must follow the principle of legalism, that is, it is limited to the scope of addition clearly provided for by laws and judicial interpretations, and can neither be added beyond the statutory circumstances, nor can it be directly cited from the relevant substantive judgment provisions for addition. Where the person applying for enforcement applies to add the spouse of the person subject to enforcement as the person subject to enforcement, the people's court will not add it because it exceeds the statutory circumstances. When the creditor has conclusive evidence to prove that the debts of one of the husband and wife determined by the effective legal documents are joint debts of the husband and wife, the creditor may file a lawsuit for confirmation of the joint debts of the husband and wife, and the husband and wife who have not raised the debts cannot be directly ruled to bear civil liability through the procedure of adding a person subject to enforcement in the enforcement procedure.

[Case document number] :(2023) Chuan 2021 Zhiyi No. 19

03. Determination of Liability in the Circumstance Where One of the Husband and Wife Provides Joint and Several Guarantees to the Outside World and the Other Party Only Signs at the Guarantor's Spouse of the Guarantee Contract - A Bank v. Liu, Wu, and Zang, a Financial Loan Contract Dispute Case

[Summary of the trial]:

In a dispute over a financial loan contract, if the guarantor's spouse signs the guarantee contract, the content of the contract should be reviewed and determined whether the guarantor's spouse should be jointly and severally liable for the repayment of the loan. If one of the guarantor's spouses only signs and stamps at the end of the contract as the guarantor's spouse, and there is no evidence to prove that the guarantor's spouse's signature is an expression of intent to voluntarily provide joint and several guarantees, he or she shall not be jointly and severally liable for the repayment of the loan.

[Case Interpretation]:

The main issue involved in this case is whether the spouse of the guarantor should be jointly and severally liable for the repayment of the loan if one of the spouses of the husband and wife enters into a guarantee contract as a joint and several guarantor for the loan, and the spouse only signs and stamps the "spouse of the guarantor" in the guarantee contract.

The first view is that the debt guaranteed by the guarantor is a joint debt of the husband and wife, and the spouse should bear the joint responsibility for repayment.

Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "Debts incurred by both husband and wife in the joint signature of the husband and wife or by one of the husband and wife in the subsequent recognition of the common intention, as well as debts incurred by one of the husband and wife in his or her own name for the daily needs of the family during the marriage are joint debts of the husband and wife." Debts incurred by one of the spouses in his or her own name during the existence of the marital relationship in excess of the daily needs of the family are not joint debts of the husband and wife; However, the creditor can prove that the debt was used for the husband and wife's common life, joint production and business, or based on the common intention of the husband and wife. "During the existence of the marital relationship, one of the husband and wife signs the guarantee contract, and the spouse signs and seals the "guarantor's spouse", which is a credit enhancement measure provided to a lender such as a financial institution, and the signature and seal of the guarantor's spouse is an act of the spouse's knowledge and confirmation of the guarantor's act of providing a guarantee, and the guarantor and his or her spouse have a common expression of intent, which meets the principle of "joint debt and joint signature" in the criteria for determining the joint debts of the husband and wife, and the secured debt shall be determined to be a joint debt of the husband and wife, and the spouse shall bear the joint responsibility for repayment.

The second view is that one of the spouses should not be liable for liquidation if he or she only signs with the "guarantor's spouse".

The spouse did not sign the guarantee contract, but signed it at the "guarantor's spouse", and did not have a clear expression of intent to bear the guarantee liability for the debt, so it did not constitute the guarantor of the debt involved in the case. Article 24 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the <中华人民共和国婚姻法>Marriage [expired on January 1, 2021] stipulates that: "Where a creditor claims rights in respect of a debt incurred by one of the spouses in his or her own name during the marriage, it shall be treated as a joint debt of the husband and wife. However, one of the spouses can prove that the creditor and the debtor have expressly agreed that it is a personal debt, or can prove that it falls under the circumstances provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Marriage Law." In 2015, the First Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court clearly stated in the Reply on Whether the Debts Guaranteed by One of the Husband and Wife Can Be Recognized as Joint Debts of the Husband and Wife that the debts guaranteed by one of the spouses should not be recognized as joint debts of the husband and wife in accordance with Article 24 of the Interpretation (II) of the Marriage Law. It can be seen that the debts guaranteed by one of the husband and wife are not joint debts of the husband and wife, and the guaranteed debts formed have nothing to do with the spouse, and the spouses do not need to bear the joint responsibility for repayment.

On the issue of whether the spouse bears the liability for repayment when he or she signs his or her name in the "Guarantor's Spouse" column of the guarantee contract, it is necessary to determine whether the spouse has the status of a guarantor and whether the debt of the guarantee is a joint debt of the husband and wife.

1. Determination of whether the spouse has the status of a guarantor.

The guarantor's spouse only signs and stamps the "guarantor's spouse" in the sponsorship contract, and it cannot be presumed that the guarantor's spouse has the status of a guarantor. The signature and seal of the guarantor's spouse only indicates that he knows, understands or even confirms the guarantor's guarantee, and cannot reflect his subjective intention to provide a guarantee for the debts involved in the case. In financial loan contract disputes, financial institutions have a strong sense of risk prevention and are in an advantageous position in the transaction, and can and are fully qualified to require the spouse to make an expression of intent to provide a guarantee for the main debt or to add the spouse as a guarantor afterwards when signing the guarantee contract, and only require the spouse to sign at the spouse of the guarantee contract, which is often an intentional choice based on factors such as personal credit reporting, transaction efficiency, and management costs. When the facts of the case are unclear, when determining whether one spouse bears guarantee liability, the principles of prudence and protection of the interests of civil entities in good faith and without fault should be upheld, and the role of adjudication and guidance should be brought into play to regulate the transaction conduct of civil entities and strengthen risk prevention. Therefore, to determine that the guarantor's spouse has the status of a guarantor, the guarantor's spouse's clear expression of intent to provide a guarantee for the debts involved in the case must be used as the criterion. If the guarantor's spouse has a clear intention to provide a guarantor, it shall be deemed that the guarantor's spouse also has the status of a guarantor; On the other hand, if the spouse of the guarantor only signs at the spouse of the guarantee contract, it only means that he or she is aware of the existence of the guarantee act or the content of the guarantee contract, and based on the relativity of the contract, it cannot be presumed that the spouse has the status of the guarantor, and the spouse does not need to be liable for the repayment of the debts guaranteed by the guarantor. Specifically, in this case, Zang only signed and stamped with the guarantor's spouse and there was no other evidence to prove that Zang had the intention to bear joint and several guarantee liability, so he did not have the status of a guarantor and should not bear joint and several guarantee liability.

2. Analysis of whether the debts formed by the external guarantee of one of the husband and wife constitute joint debts of the husband and wife.

The basic criterion for judging whether the guaranteed debt is a joint debt of the husband and wife should be based on whether the husband and wife agree and whether the husband and wife benefit together. First of all, to determine that there is an agreement between the guarantor and his or her spouse on the guarantee debt, the standard should be that the spouse has made a clear expression of intent on the guarantor's guarantee act, that is, the guarantor's spouse is required to make an expression of intent to join the guarantee debt or guarantee the external security with the joint property of the husband and wife. When judging whether it is a joint debt of the husband and wife, the principle of individual debt borrowing should be taken as the exception, and the scope of routine family agency cannot be expanded if the spouse does not clearly indicate that he or she is liable for the joint property of the husband and wife, and the guarantor's spouse shall be determined to be liable for the guaranteed debt according to the joint debt of the husband and wife. In this case, if Zang only signed at the spouse of the guarantor of the guarantee contract and did not make a clear expression of intent on the guarantor's guarantee, the judgment should not be broadened to mean that the debt of the guarantee involved in the case is a joint debt of the husband and wife. Second, determine whether the guarantor and his or her spouse have jointly benefited from one of the sponsors, so as to determine whether it constitutes a joint debt of the husband and wife.

In judicial practice, this point is quite controversial. There is a view that although the debt of guarantee is unilateral and gratuitous, and it cannot meet the "daily needs of the family" and cannot be used for "the husband and wife to live together and jointly produce and operate", this does not mean that the husband and wife have not benefited from the guarantee of one of the spouses. If the guarantor and his or her spouse benefit from the act of guaranteeing and fall into the category of "daily needs of the family", "living together" or "joint production and operation", the provisions of Articles 1060 and 1064 of the Civil Code may be applied to recognize the debt guaranteed by one of the spouses as a joint debt of the husband and wife. For example, if the debtor pays a certain service fee to the guarantor in order to facilitate the conclusion of the guarantee contract, and the guarantor uses the money for the common life of the husband and wife, the economic interest is the joint benefit of the guarantor and his or her spouse, and the debt of the guarantee shall be recognized as the joint debt of the husband and wife; However, in the case of a reimbursable guarantee debt, if the guarantor's spouse does not know or agree to the guarantee, and the benefits obtained from the guarantee debt are not used for the joint life of the husband and wife, it shall not be presumed to be a joint debt.

Therefore, in determining whether the debts guaranteed by one of the husband and wife are joint debts of the husband and wife, the principle of judging each case should be adhered to, and the determination should be made by comprehensively considering the true meaning of the spouse's signature at the "guarantor's spouse" in the guarantee contract, whether the debts involved in the case were incurred during the existence of the marital relationship between the husband and wife, and whether the creditor can prove that the debts involved in the case were used for the husband and wife's common life or joint production and operation.

[Case source]: Typical case 148 of the application of the Civil Code of Shandong Court

04. Does the borrowing of one party during the cooling-off period constitute a joint debt of the husband and wife?

[Court Trial]:

After trial, the court held that a real and effective loan relationship was formed between Ren and Man. The plaintiff Ren X lent 270,000 yuan to the defendant Man XX, the facts are clear, the evidence is sufficient, the defendant Man XX failed to repay the loan within the agreed time limit, and the principal and interest of the plaintiff's loan should be repaid. On the issue of whether the present case constitutes a joint debt of the husband and wife. Defendants Man XX and Wang XX had applied for divorce registration before the occurrence of the loan, and after the fact of the loan occurred, there was no large amount of money exchange between the two, and it could not be proved that the loan involved in the case was used for the husband and wife to live together, and the plaintiff Ren XX did not submit evidence to prove that Wang XX was aware of the fact of the loan involved in the case, and Wang XX did not express his intention to repay it jointly, so the court found that the debt involved in the case did not constitute a joint debt of the husband and wife. In the end, the court ruled that the defendant Man XX should repay the plaintiff Ren's loan of 270,000 yuan and interest within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment, and rejected the plaintiff Ren's other litigation claims.

[Judge's Statement]:

The relevant provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China establish the basic principle of "joint debt and joint signature" in terms of content, and make it clear that the debts incurred for the daily needs of the family are the joint debts of the husband and wife. For the determination of joint debts of husband and wife, first, the debts borne based on the joint intention of the husband and wife can be jointly signed in advance or recognized after the fact; The second is the debt incurred for the daily needs of the family. In this case, the defendant Man and Wang were already in the cooling-off period of divorce at the time of the loan, and there was no large amount of money between the two parties, and the plaintiff Ren had no evidence to prove that the debts involved in the case were used for the common life of the husband and wife, so it could not be determined that the debts involved in the case were joint debts of the husband and wife. In real life, creditors should exercise prudent care when establishing creditor-debtor relationships, otherwise legal risks may easily arise.

05. Determination of the nature of the debt formed by one of the husband and wife providing security for the debts of others

【Viewpoint Analysis】:

First, most of the personal guarantees that exist in real life are gratuitous guarantees, and the guarantor has neither obtained benefits from the creditor nor the consideration from the debtor, and the guarantee provided by the guarantor does not increase the joint property of the husband and wife, and the relevant debts are not used for family life, thus blocking the connection between the guarantee debt and the joint debts of the husband and wife. Therefore, the liability of one spouse to a third party formed by providing security for the debts of others is to provide security for the debts of others on the basis of personal credit, which does not involve the interests of the husband and wife or the family, and the debts are not joint debts of the husband and wife.

Second, if one of the husband and wife provides a guarantee for the debts of others, obtains economic benefits through the guarantee and uses them for the common life of the family, for example, if the loan contract clearly stipulates that the loan interest rate is 2% per month and the guarantor's income is 0.5%, the guarantee is closely related to the joint life of the husband and wife, and the corresponding debt shall be recognized as the joint debt of the husband and wife.

Third, if one party, as the legal representative of a husband and wife company, borrows money in his or her own name during the existence of the marital relationship for the company's operation or provides guarantee for the company's loans, the loan or secured debt shall be recognized as a joint debt of the husband and wife.

[Source of opinion]: Jiang Bixin, editor-in-chief, Lectures on the Application and Practice of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (Volume II), People's Court Press, 2020 edition.

06. Key points to consider in determining whether the debt guaranteed by one of the husband and wife is a joint debt of the husband and wife -- Zhang Xiuping and Tian Yu, the defendant of the first instance and the appellant of the second instance, Hebei Xuyue Industrial Group Co., Ltd., and the defendants of the first instance, Zeng Haisheng, Xu Yuequan, Hao Wenjie, Hebei Lijia Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., and Hebei Xinyuan Shunfa Chemical Fertilizer Co., Ltd., a loan contract dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

I. In the Reply to the Fujian Provincial High People's Court on Whether the Debts Guaranteed by One of the Husband and Wife Can Be Recognized as Joint Debts of the Husband and Wife ([2015] Min Yi Ta Zi No. 9) issued by the First Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court to the Fujian Provincial High People's Court in the case of "Private Loan Dispute between the Retrial Applicants Song and Ye and the Respondent Ye and the Defendants Chen and Li in the First Instance", although it contains the expression that "the debts guaranteed by one of the husband and wife shall not be recognized as joint debts of the husband and wife in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 of Interpretation II of the Marriage Law". However, the reply is a reply to the question of the application of law in specific cases, and is not in the nature of judicial interpretation and is not universally binding.

II. Debts guaranteed by one of the spouses are generally not recognized as joint debts of the husband and wife, considering that one of the spouses often does not enjoy his or her benefits. However, not all secured debts are not joint debts of the husband and wife, and whether the secured debts are joint debts of the husband and wife should be considered whether the debts are closely related to the common life of the husband and wife.

Case Number: :(2017) Supreme Law Min Shen No. 44

07. How should private lending disputes and divorce disputes where one of the husband and wife maliciously colludes with a third party to fabricate marital debts? ——A private lending dispute between Zhao and Xiang Moumin

[Summary of the trial]:

I. If one of the husband and wife is suspected of maliciously colluding with a third party and fabricating marital debts through false litigation, the unilateral admission of debts by one of the husband and wife does not necessarily exempt the "lender" from the burden of proof for the fact that the loan relationship has been established and effective.

II. If the lender only provides an IOU to support the lending relationship, it shall conduct an in-depth investigation of the supporting facts to judge the authenticity of the loan agreement, such as the necessity of borrowing and the reasonableness of the use of the funds. If the lender is unable to provide evidence to prove the fact of loan delivery, it shall comprehensively consider factors such as the lender's economic situation, source of funds, method of delivery, and witnesses present to determine the credibility of the parties' statements.

III. For a large amount of loans, if there is only an IOU without any proof of delivery, and there are major doubts or contradictions in the statements of the parties, it shall be determined that the "lender" has not fulfilled the burden of proof in accordance with the rules of evidence, and the judgment shall reject the request. If the borrower's spouse does not participate in the litigation and neither the lender nor the borrower expressly waives their share of the debts that the spouse may bear, in order to ascertain the facts of the case, the borrower's spouse who has an interest in the outcome of the case shall be added as a third party to participate in the litigation in accordance with the law, so as to form a substantive confrontation.

[Rule Analysis]:

Some of the private lending dispute cases heard by the people's courts are essentially the determination and handling of the joint debts of the husband and wife. In judicial practice, there are not only the phenomena of collusion between the debtor and the husband and wife to damage the interests of the creditor through fake divorce, improper disposal of property, etc., but also the phenomenon of malicious collusion between one spouse and a third party to defraud the property of the other spouse. The people's courts shall, in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law and its judicial interpretations, take into account the circumstances of the case, prevent and sanction false lawsuits, and determine the authenticity of the facts of the loan and bear responsibility in accordance with law. In divorce cases where no other person is involved, the burden is on the spouse who has incurred the debt in his or her own name to prove that the debt borrowed was used for the common life of the spouses, and if the evidence is insufficient, the spouse may not be liable for repayment. In a debt dispute case where the creditor sues one of the husband and wife as the defendant, whether the debts involved in the case are joint debts of the husband and wife shall be determined in accordance with Article 24 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China. If the debtor's spouse proves that the debt was not used for the purpose of living together as husband and wife, the borrower may not be liable for repayment.

Case No.: :(2012) Chang Min Yi (Min) Chu Zi No. 6886

Source of the case: Gazette of the Supreme People's Court, No. 12, 2014

08. The provision of guarantee for the loan of the spouse can be recognized as the joint debt of the husband and wife - Huang XX v. Hu XX and Wan XX, a guarantee contract dispute case

[Summary of the trial]:

During the existence of the husband and wife relationship, if one of the husband and wife acts as a guarantor to provide joint and several liability guarantee for the spouse's loan, and signs the guarantee contract, and the husband and wife indicate that they have a common intention to borrow the debt by way of guarantee, which is sufficient for the creditor to have a trust interest, it shall be recognized as a joint debt of the husband and wife.

[Case document number] :(2022) Gan 0123 Min Chu No. 717

09. If one of the husband and wife did not sign the loan contract involved in the case, and the creditor only claimed that the company held by the party was the shareholder of the company to which the equity transfer of the debt involved in the case belonged to the company, and it was a joint debt of the husband and wife, the people's court did not support it-Zhu Moumou and Henan Yiteng New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. Contract dispute case

[Reasons for the trial]:

The "Debt Repayment Contract" involved in the case confirmed that Zhu Moumou should pay a total of 37.4 million yuan of loan principal and interest to Wen Moumou. Yang and Zhu were husband and wife, and the debts involved in the case occurred during the existence of their marital relationship. For the issue of whether Yang Moumou should bear joint and several liability for debts incurred in the name of Zhu Moumou and beyond the daily needs of the family, Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Debts between Husband and Wife (now Article 1064 of the Civil Code) implemented on January 18, 2018 should be based on "debts incurred by one of the husband and wife in his or her own name during the existence of the marital relationship that exceed the daily needs of the family, Where a creditor claims rights on the ground that it is a joint debt of the husband and wife, the people's court shall not support it, except where the creditor can prove that the debt was used for the husband and wife's common life, joint production and operation, or based on the joint intention of the husband and wife". In this case, Yang did not sign the Debt Repayment Contract and its supplementary agreement, and Wen did not submit other evidence to prove that the debts involved in the case were based on the common intention of Yang and Zhu; The industrial and commercial registration information of Yiteng Company (the debt involved in the case was caused by the transfer of the equity of Yiteng Company by Zhu Moumou to Wen) submitted by Wen Moumou only shows that Suzhou Deji Enterprise Management Center (Limited Partnership) held by Yang Moumou is also a shareholder of Yiteng Company, but the shareholding relationship cannot show that the debts involved in the case were used for the joint business activities of Yang Moumou and Zhu Moumou. Under the circumstance that Wen XX failed to fulfill the full burden of proof, his claim that Yang XX was jointly and severally liable for Zhu's debts was not based on sufficient grounds and could not be established.

Case Number: :(2018) Supreme Law Min Zhong No. 202

10. IOUs formed by "break-up fees" are not protected by law

[Summary of the trial]:

If the lender only provides an IOU, it can only prove that the parties have reached an agreement to borrow the loan, and if the lender cannot further prove that the loan was actually delivered, the loan contract has not taken effect. The plaintiff presented an IOU issued by the defendant, which could only prove that the plaintiff and the defendant had reached an agreement to borrow money, but it did not submit evidence to this court to prove that the loan was actually delivered. The plaintiff claimed that the formation of this IOU was formed after years of cash settlement between the two parties, but it could not clearly state the delivery details such as the delivery time and place of delivery, and the defendant denied the formation of a private lending relationship between the two parties and did not recognize the actual delivery of the loan. In this case, the plaintiff claimed to pay a large amount of money in cash, and there was only an IOU as evidence in the whole case, and there was no other evidence to support it, so this court found that there was no real loan relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The historical list of debit card accounts submitted by the plaintiff can only prove that the defendant remitted 100,000 yuan to the plaintiff's account on April 21, 2015, and also fails to prove the actual delivery of the loan of 300,000 yuan. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the defendant to repay the loan and pay interest does not comply with the provisions of the law and is not supported by this court.

Case Number: :(2016) Jing 0102 Min Chu No. 28028

11. The court generally supports the lawyer's fees stipulated in the loan contract and actually paid them - the plaintiff Liu Juanjuan sued the defendants Li Tong and Song Xiaoyan in a private loan dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

The court held that after Li Tong and Liu Juanjuan signed the loan contract, Liu Juanjuan paid the money agreed in the loan contract to Li Tong, and Li Tong should repay the principal and pay the agreed interest when due in accordance with the loan contract. Li Tong's failure to repay the principal and interest of the loan within the time limit has constituted a breach of contract, and he shall bear the responsibility of continuing to repay the principal and interest, and pay Liu Juanjuan's attorney's fees and preservation costs for the realization of the creditor's rights in accordance with the loan contract. Song Xiaoyan and Li are both husband and wife, and should bear joint responsibility for repayment of debts during the continuation of the husband and wife relationship. Therefore, Li Tong's litigation claim has a contractual and legal basis, and this court supports it.

Case No.: :(2014) Zheng Min Si Chu Zi No. 390

12. When the husband and wife divorce and agree that the joint debts shall be borne by one party, what should the creditor do?

[Summary of the trial]:

After trial, the court held that according to the receipts submitted by the plaintiff, it could be determined that a de facto contractual relationship for the supply of ship materials and spare parts had been formed between the plaintiff and the defendant Xu Moumou. As both parties to the contract, they shall perform their respective obligations in accordance with the agreement. Under the circumstance that the plaintiff has provided the ship materials to the defendant Xu Moumou in accordance with the contract, the defendant Xu Moumou has the obligation to repay the plaintiff the material price of 181,870 yuan according to the amount contained in the receipt. In view of the fact that the plaintiff has received 50,400 yuan from the defendant Wang, and the remaining materials are 131,470 yuan, the defendant Xu has the obligation to pay.

With regard to the plaintiff's claim that the defendant Xu XX should pay the plaintiff interest from the date of filing the lawsuit to the date of actual repayment at the loan market prime interest rate announced by the National Interbank Funding Center based on the amount of material money owed by the defendant Xu Moumou, in view of the fact that the receipt involved in the case did not stipulate the time of payment of the material payment, according to Articles 61 and 161 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, when there is no agreement between the two parties and it cannot be determined in accordance with the transaction customs, the payment for the materials involved in the case shall be deemed to be delivered immediately. The plaintiff's claim to calculate interest at the loan market prime rate published by the National Interbank Funding Center from the date of filing the lawsuit to the date of actual repayment is in accordance with the provisions of Article 113, Paragraph 1 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, and should be supported.

With regard to the plaintiff's request for the defendant Wang to bear joint and several repayment of the above-mentioned debts, in view of the fact that the above-mentioned debts occurred during the marriage of the two defendants, the defendant Wang's repayment of the material money to the plaintiff is sufficient to prove that the debts involved in the case were incurred in the course of the joint operation of the two defendants, and according to the provisions, the defendant Wang XX should bear joint and several liability for repayment. Although the two defendants stipulated in the divorce agreement that the debts incurred during the marriage relationship between the two parties would be borne by the defendant Xu XX, the agreement was an agreement between the two defendants, which could only bind the two defendants, not the plaintiff, and could not exempt the defendant Wang XX from the liability for debt repayment.

To sum up, in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, the defendant Xu Moumou was ordered to repay the plaintiff 131,470 yuan and interest; Defendant Wang XX and defendant Xu XX are jointly and severally liable for the above debts.

In this case, the relevant receipts were signed by one of the husband and wife in his or her own name, and the plaintiff claimed that the corresponding debts were incurred in the course of the husband and wife's joint production and operation, and the plaintiff bore the burden of proof for this. To determine whether it is a joint production or operation of husband and wife, it is necessary to make a comprehensive determination based on the nature of the business activities and the status and role of the husband and wife in it. During the existence of the relationship between husband and wife, the defendant Xu XX purchased marine materials from the plaintiff many times, and the defendant Wang XX repaid the material payment to the plaintiff through bank transfer and cash payment many times, and the purchase and payment can form a corresponding relationship, which is sufficient to determine that the above-mentioned debts are incurred in the course of the joint production and operation of the husband and wife, and meet the requirements of Article 3 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Debts between Husband and Wife" on the determination of joint debts of husband and wife, and the two defendants should bear joint and several liability for repayment.

Another focus of controversy in this case is whether the agreement in the divorce agreement between the two defendants that "all debts incurred during the marriage shall be borne by the man" can be used as a basis for exempting the defendant Wang Moumou from the liability for repaying the debts involved in the case. The above situation occurs from time to time in real life, and the party who does not bear the debt in the divorce agreement often defends that he should not be liable for repayment when facing the creditor's recovery or lawsuit. In this regard, according to the provisions of relevant laws and judicial interpretations, the divorce agreement is only binding on the divorce parties and cannot be used against a third party, otherwise the legitimate rights of the creditor will be damaged, that is, the creditor still has the right to claim rights against the husband and wife. At the same time, after one party bears the responsibility for repaying the joint debts of the husband and wife, he or she may claim that the other party shall bear the corresponding debts in accordance with the divorce agreement or the legal documents of the people's court. In this case, after the defendant Wang XX assumed the liability for repayment, he could separately claim the corresponding liability from the defendant Xu XX in accordance with the divorce agreement.

[Case source]: Lufa Case (2023) No. 593

13. If the monetary benefits obtained from the guarantee debts borne by the guarantor are used for the common life, production and operation of the husband and wife, they shall be recognized as joint debts of the husband and wife - Wang XX v. Wang XX and Wu XX et al., a guarantee contract dispute case

[Summary of the trial]:

I. The guarantor's spouse knows that the guarantor bears the guarantee debt but does not prevent it, which does not constitute the guarantor's spouse's consent to be liable for the guarantee debt.

II. If the monetary benefits obtained by the guarantor are used for the common life, production and operation of the husband and wife, it shall be recognized as the joint debts of the husband and wife.

Case Number: :(2018) Hu 02 Min Zhong No. 11457

14. The large amount of subsidy given by parents to the business activities of adult children and their family members cannot be determined as gifts -- Zhu XX v. Huang XX and Zhu XX Private Lending Dispute Case

[Summary of the trial]:

Article 17 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases stipulates that "if the plaintiff initiates a private lending lawsuit solely on the basis of the transfer voucher of the financial institution, and the defendant argues that the transfer is to repay the previous loan or other debts of both parties, the defendant shall provide evidence to prove its claim." After the defendant provides relevant evidence to prove its claim, the plaintiff shall still bear the burden of proof for the establishment of the loan relationship. "In this case, the parties did not object to the fact that Huang's father transferred 193552 and 13 yuan to Zhu, but only to the nature of the money. Huang's father filed a private loan lawsuit based on the transfer voucher, and Zhu claimed that the nature of the money was a gift rather than a loan, and according to the above provisions, Zhu should provide evidence to prove his defense claim, but he failed to provide sufficient evidence to support it, and should bear the legal consequences of failing to provide evidence. In addition, children should be self-reliant when they reach adulthood. The provision of large amounts of financial support by one or both parents of one or both spouses to their adult children due to the needs of family business not only reflects the mutual assistance between family members, but also conforms to the humanistic concept of respecting the elderly and caring for the elderly, but it is not a legal obligation that must be borne by parents. In this case, Huang's father provided a large amount of funds for Zhu and Huang's business needs based on the identity relationship between the two parties, and it was determined that the lending of funds for the purpose of helping did not violate the concept of fairness and justice.

[Case Enlightenment]:

It is the norm in life for parents to provide large amounts of financial support for the production and business activities of adult children's families. In the event of a dispute, when the parents ask for repayment, the recipient of the money usually claims that it is a gift. We believe that children should be self-reliant when they reach adulthood. Parents have fulfilled their legal obligations by raising their children to adulthood, and their financial assistance to adult children's family business activities cannot be taken for granted. In this case, in the absence of clear evidence to prove the existence of an expression of intent to donate, the determination of a loan can not only reflect the encouragement of family members to help each other, but also deny the phenomenon of "gnawing at the elderly" in society.

15. The debts arising from the unauthorized external guarantee of one of the husband and wife and the failure of the other party to benefit from the guarantee act shall be recognized as personal debts - Yao v. Yunxin Real Estate Company and Zhang, a lawsuit against the enforcement of objections by an outsider

[Summary of the trial]:

The debts incurred by one of the spouses without authorization and the other party not benefiting from the guarantee shall be recognized as personal debts. In the process of enforcement, the legitimate rights and interests of the spouse should be properly protected. Although there are multiple immovable properties during the existence of the marital relationship, when the property is mortgaged or sealed, the efficiency of enforcement cannot be simply emphasized, and when necessary, the joint property of the husband and wife should be divided one by one to ensure the legitimate rights and interests of the spouse.

Case Number: :(2017) Zhe 08 Min Zhong No. 1074

16. Where the loan contract is signed by one of the husband and wife, and the money is paid by one of the husband and wife, and the amount of money exceeds the daily needs of the family, and the creditor fails to submit sufficient evidence to prove that the other party of the husband and wife participated in the performance of the loan contract and requires them to bear joint responsibility for repayment, the people's court will not support it -- Chen XX and Li XX et al

[Summary of the trial]:

The Supreme People's Court held that Article 3 of the original Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Debts between Husband and Wife (repealed) stipulates that: "Where a creditor claims rights over debts incurred by one of the spouses in his or her own name during the existence of the marital relationship in excess of the daily needs of the family on the ground that they are joint debts of the husband and wife, the people's court shall not support them, unless the creditor can prove that the debts were used for the husband and wife's common life, joint production and operation, or based on the common intention of the husband and wife." "In this case, the "Investment and Wealth Management Agreement" was signed by Li Moumou, and the money was paid by Li Moumou, and the amount of money also exceeded the daily needs of the family, and Chen Moumou did not submit sufficient evidence to prove that Zhao Moumou participated in the performance of the "Investment and Wealth Management Agreement". Chen's claim that Zhao should bear joint repayment liability is not based on sufficient grounds.

Case Number: :(2021) Supreme Law Min Shen No. 3028

Transferred from the same judgment rule for similar cases