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

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

Revised May 2024

17. Reference case: Zhang, Wang v. Song and other loan contract disputes

[Summary of the trial]:

If the borrower claims rights on the basis that the borrower is a joint debt of the husband and wife, the lender shall provide evidence to prove that the debt is used for the borrower's husband and wife's common life, joint production and operation, or based on the joint intention of the husband and wife. If the other spouse is aware of the loan and expresses his intention to repay the loan, even if he or she does not know the specific amount of the loan, this situation should be recognized as a joint debt of the husband and wife.

[Case document number] :(2022) Jin 08 Min Zai No. 7

18. How to determine that the loan borrowed by one of the husband and wife is used for the common life of the husband and wife, and then the husband and wife jointly bear the responsibility for repayment? ——Zhang Mousheng, Lin Moutuan, Zhang Anqi private lending dispute case

[Summary of the trial]:

Where there is a dispute between the parties as to whether the nature of the debt is a personal debt or a joint debt of the husband and wife, the people's court shall generally make a comprehensive judgment based on the respective work and economic situation of the husband and wife, as well as the relationship between the husband and wife and their contribution to the family economy.

[Rule Analysis]:

In judicial practice, the most common type of case involving the joint debts of husband and wife is that during the existence of the marital relationship, the creditor files a lawsuit with the people's court with a loan agreement signed with one of the spouses or an IOU issued by one of the spouses, claiming that the debtor and his or her spouse shall be jointly and severally liable for the debt. In such cases, some courts will add the debtor's spouse as a co-defendant, either at the request of the creditor or ex officio. After the spouse of the additional debtor participates in the lawsuit, as long as it is ascertained through the trial that the loan did indeed occur during the existence of the marital relationship, and the debtor and his wife did not implement the agreed property system, or although the agreed property system was implemented, they did not clearly inform the creditor at the time of borrowing, the debtor and his or her spouse will generally be jointly and severally liable for the debt. This is conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of creditors and facilitating enforcement by the people's courts. However, if there is a dispute between the parties as to whether the nature of the debt is the personal debt of the borrower or the joint debt of the husband and wife, the people's court must make a judgment on the nature of the debt. Whether it is used for the husband and wife to live together is mostly judged based on the work and economic situation of the husband and wife, the relationship between the husband and wife, and the contribution to the family economy. If the debtor's spouse can prove that the debts borrowed by the debtor were not indeed used for the common life of the spouses, the spouse may be allowed to be exempt from the liability for repayment, and if it can be proved that the debts borrowed were used for the common life of the spouses, the spouse shall be liable for repayment.

Case No.: :(2011) Zhewen Shang Chu Zi No. 23 (2012) Zhe Shang Zhong Zi No. 32

[Case source]: The First Division of Civil Trial of the Supreme People's Court, "Case Guidance for the Trial of Private Lending Disputes", People's Court Press, August 2015, 1st edition.

19. Attention should be paid to verifying whether the debt guaranteed by a large amount of financial loan between husband and wife is the true expression of the intention of one of the guarantor's spouse -- a financial loan contract dispute supervision case between Guangzhou First Branch of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and a refrigeration equipment installation engineering Co., Ltd. in Guangzhou, Liang Mouting, etc

[Summary of the trial]:

In the field of financial loan business, the guarantor's guarantee debt is often huge, and obviously does not belong to the scope of daily family life in the usual sense, and the guarantor's spouse guarantees a large amount of financial loans, and if they sign together, it is a joint debt and must bear the guarantee liability. In the course of reviewing the case, the procuratorial organs shall verify the authenticity of the signatures by means of collecting evidence, appraisals, and questioning the parties, so as to determine whether the debts secured by large financial loans are the true expression of the intention of the guarantor's spouse, and truly safeguard the lawful rights and interests of the guarantor's spouse, especially housewives who do not participate in their spouse's production and business activities.

[Typical significance]:

In judicial practice, the criteria for judging joint debts of husband and wife and the rules for the application of law have been revised and improved many times, and Article 1064 of the Civil Code formally establishes the principle of "joint debt and joint signature" of joint debts of husband and wife. Especially in the field of financial loan business, the amount of debt guaranteed by the guarantor is often huge, and obviously does not belong to the scope of daily family life in the usual sense, and the guarantor's spouse needs to sign jointly to guarantee a large amount of financial loans, or the creditor can prove that the debt is used for the husband and wife to live together, joint production and operation, in order to be recognized as a joint debt and jointly liable. In the course of examining a case, the procuratorial organs should make good use of their power of investigation and verification, and may, on the basis of the parties' applications, adopt methods such as collecting evidence, appraisals, and questioning the parties concerned to verify the authenticity of the signatures, so as to determine whether the debts secured by large financial loans are the true expression of the intention of the guarantor's spouse, and truly safeguard the lawful rights and interests of the guarantor's spouse, especially housewives who do not participate in their spouse's production and business activities. The handling of this case fully demonstrates the important role of the procuratorial organs in the field of civil supervision, and through the use of investigation and verification powers, they have fully performed their legal supervision functions and effectively safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of women.

[Case source]: The Guangdong Provincial People's Procuratorate released typical cases involving joint debts of husband and wife

20. How to determine that the loan is a joint debt of the husband and wife? ——Lu Moulu and Xing Moutao and Fang Moumou private lending dispute case

[Summary of the trial]:

In a private lending dispute case between natural persons, in a debt dispute case where the lender 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 the provisions of 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 borrower's spouse can prove that the borrowed debt was not used for the purpose of living together as husband and wife, he or she may not be liable for repayment.

[Rule Analysis]:

During the existence of the marital relationship, whether the external debts of one of the husband and wife belong to the joint debts of the husband and wife or the personal debts of one of the husband and wife not only involve the interests of the husband and wife, but also directly affect the interests of creditors. According to the provisions of the Marriage Law and judicial interpretations, there are two criteria for determining the joint debts of husband and wife: first, whether the debts occurred during the existence of the husband and wife relationship; Second, whether the debt is incurred by the husband and wife living together. Therefore, when determining whether the debt is borne by the husband and wife living together, it should be based on the comprehensive judgment of whether the purpose of borrowing the debt is for the purpose of living together with the husband and wife, whether the benefits after the debt are jointly enjoyed by the husband and wife, and the purpose of the borrower's borrowing.

Case No.: :(2013) Gao Min Chu Zi No. 1629 (2014) Ning Min Zhong Zi No. 5338

Case source: The First Division of the Civil Trial of the Supreme People's Court, Case Guidance for the Trial of Private Lending Disputes, People's Court Press, August 2015, 1st edition.

21. During the existence of the husband and wife relationship, if one of the husband and wife and the company jointly invested by both parties act as the borrower, and the "Loan Contract" signed with the lender stipulates that the loan shall be used for the working capital of the company jointly invested by both parties, it shall be deemed that the loan is used for the joint production and operation of the husband and wife, and after the loan occurs, the other party of the husband and wife provides a guarantee for the loan, and it shall be deemed that the party is aware of or recognizes the fact of the loan, and the debt shall be recognized as a joint debt of the husband and wife -- a private loan dispute between Li and Yunnan Tianhui Investment Co., Ltd

[Reasons for the trial]:

Article 1 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) stipulates that "debts incurred by both husband and wife jointly signed by both husband and wife or recognized by one of the husband and wife after the fact, shall be recognized as joint debts of husband and wife", and Article 3 stipulates that "where a debt incurred by one of the husband and wife in his or her own name during the existence of the marital relationship exceeds the daily needs of the family, and the creditor claims rights on the ground that it is a joint debt of the husband and wife, The people's court will 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." The Loan Contract stipulates that the loan under the contract shall only be used by the borrower Li and Yunnan Tianhui Investment Co., Ltd. as working capital. The loan involved in the case occurred during the existence of the husband and wife relationship between Li and Deng, and Yunnan Tianhui Investment Co., Ltd. was 95% owned by Li and 5% held by Deng, and the loan should be determined to be used for the joint production and operation of Li and Deng Mouying. After the loan occurred, Deng Mouying used his shares in Yunnan Tianhui Investment Co., Ltd. to handle the equity pledge for the loan involved in the case, and it should be determined that Deng Mouying knew the fact of the loan or recognized it afterwards. Therefore, the loan involved in the case is a joint debt of Deng Mouying and Li's husband and wife, and Deng Mouying should bear the joint responsibility for repayment.

Although 20 million yuan of the loans involved in the case were remitted to Li's account and 40 million yuan to the account of Yunnan Tianhui Investment Co., Ltd., Li and Yunnan Tianhui Investment Co., Ltd. signed the "Loan Contract" and issued the "Repayment Confirmation" as co-borrowers. Therefore, Li, as one of the co-borrowers, should bear the responsibility for repaying the entire loan of 60 million yuan. Deng Mouying's record on the registration application for equity pledge of the secured claim is 46,025,000 yuan, and it cannot be proved that the only guarantee is the 40 million yuan of debt remitted to Yunnan Tianhui Investment Co., Ltd. Therefore, Deng Mouying should bear the joint responsibility for the repayment of the principal and interest of the arrears corresponding to the 60 million yuan creditor's right.

Case Number: :(2020) Supreme Law Min Zai No. 84

22. If one of the husband and wife mortgages the house jointly owned by the husband and wife without authorization, and the mortgage is not recognized by the other party, it cannot be proved that the mortgage is a true expression of intent and is not effective - Xiao Min v. Xiao Lu, Xiao Wang, and Zhang, a dispute over a guarantee contract

[Summary of the trial]:

Since one of the husband and wife mortgaged the house jointly owned by the husband and wife without authorization, and pretended to be the other party to recognize the mortgage guarantee contract, the available evidence could not prove that the other party had the true intention to establish a mortgage on the house at issue, so the people's court ruled that the relevant guarantee clause was not effective against the other party in accordance with law.

23. A large amount of debt borrowed by one of the husband and wife that is not used for living together is a personal debt-Chen Kejun v. Qi Qi and Cui Xiaowei, a private loan dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

Whether the debts incurred by one of the spouses should be recognized as joint debts of the husband and wife should be based on whether the debts are used for the joint life of the husband and wife. In the case of large debts incurred by one of the spouses that are not used for common living, they shall be recognized as the personal debts of the borrower, not the joint debts of the husband and wife.

Case No.: :(2017) Jing 0111 Min Chu No. 12207

24. The debts of the husband and wife during the period of living together after the divorce should be borne by both parties - Li Jia v. Li Mouquan et al., a retrial of a loan contract dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

The existence of trading habits between the parties shall be proved by the parties upon presentation of evidence, and the people's courts shall not apply them on their own initiative. Only because the previous transaction pattern is similar to the current transaction mode, the existence of corresponding trading habits shall not be determined. If the life and economic exchanges between the husband and wife are still relatively close after the divorce, it is not appropriate for one party to bear the debts only by that party, nor should it be determined that the debts are jointly and severally borne by both parties, but should be recognized as joint debts and borne by both parties.

Case No.: :(2016) Jin Min Shen No. 526

25. In a private lending dispute, if the husband or wife claims the joint debts of the husband and wife by means of an IOU unilaterally issued to the parents, it should first be ascertained whether there is a real loan agreement between the parents who are the nominal creditors and the children who are the nominal debtors -- Chen XX v. Wu XX and Li XX Private Lending Dispute Case

[Summary of the trial]:

In a private lending dispute, if the husband or wife claims joint debts by means of an IOU issued by the husband or wife to the parents, in principle, it is necessary to first ascertain whether there is a genuine loan agreement between the parents who are the nominal creditors and the children who are the nominal debtors. This shall be determined based on the lender's income, economic status and lending ability, whether the children and their spouses have a reasonable need for loans, whether there is a conflict of interest involving the division of property such as separation and divorce, and whether the IOU has been backdated.

Case Number: :(2018) Hu 02 Min Zhong No. 11683

26. Although one of the husband and wife borrowed debts in his or her own name that exceeded the requirements for daily expenses, but the act was an investment and business behavior to earn interest margins, and the interest obtained was also used for the husband and wife to live together, it should be recognized as a joint debt of the husband and wife -- Cui Yuhua, Yang Xingyi, and Ma Yaozhong, a private loan dispute case

[Summary of the trial]:

One of the husband and wife borrowed a debt in his or her own name that exceeded the cost of daily expenses, and the creditor had proved that the loan involved in the case was an investment and business operation of one of the husband and wife to earn interest rate differences, and the interest was used for the husband and wife to live together, so the debt was a joint debt of the husband and wife and should be repaid jointly by the husband and wife.

Case No.: :(2018) Supreme Law Min Shen No. 634

[Case source]: "Commercial Trial Guidance" 2019 Volume 2 (Total Volume 49)

27. Where one of the husband and wife borrows money in his or her own name, but the funds flow upwards through the bank account of the other spouse, it may be deemed that he knowingly and actually participated in the loan, and it shall be treated as a joint debt of the husband and wife

[Summary of the trial]:

Although the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff in his own name, from the perspective of capital flow, after the plaintiff remitted the money to the defendant's account, the defendant immediately remitted the money to his spouse, so it can be seen that the defendant's spouse should have been aware of and actually participated in the loan, so the loan should be deemed to be a joint debt of the husband and wife.

Case No.: :(2017) Supreme Law Min Shen No. 3507

28. If the borrower's spouse raises objections to the authenticity of the loan, it shall be comprehensively examined and judged whether the loan actually occurred - Li Shaohua v. Cai Yi et al., a loan contract dispute appeal case

[Summary of the trial]:

Whether the money is actually lent and whether the loan actually occurs is the primary and most basic fact of private lending cases. In handling private lending cases involving the debtor and his or her spouse involving a divorce background, when the lender and the borrower do not have any dispute over the occurrence of the loan, and the borrower's spouse raises objections to the authenticity of the loan, it should be combined with the statements and evidence of the parties to comprehensively verify and judge whether the loan really occurred, accurately grasp the standard of proof between this evidence and counter-evidence, and prevent the parties from covering up illegal purposes and false litigation in the form of loans.

Case No.: :(2015) Yue Gao Fa Min Si Zhong Zi No. 163

29. The debts of one of the husband and wife guaranteed by external guarantees should be judged by comprehensively considering whether the debts of the guarantee are closely related to the joint production and life of the husband and wife -- Yang v. Zhang and Wang, a private loan dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

According to Article 1064 of the Civil Code, whether the secured debt is closely related to the joint production and life of the husband and wife shall be comprehensively considered to determine whether the secured debt is a joint debt of the husband and wife.

30. How to determine whether the husband dies and leaves a million in arrears, whether it is a joint debt of the husband and wife?

[Summary of the trial]:

There are two points of dispute in this case: first, whether the debts involved in the case are joint debts of the husband and wife; The second is whether Tian Xiao and Ma should be held liable for the debts involved in the case.

After trial, the court held that the parties had the obligation to provide the court with corresponding evidence for their claims. Jin claimed that Tian had borrowed 1 million yuan from him before his death, and submitted the loan contract signed with Tian and the corresponding transfer voucher as evidence. Xu argued that he was unaware and that it was a false debt, but did not provide contrary evidence to overturn it, so the court found that there was a private lending relationship between Jin and Tian in accordance with the law, and that the legal lending relationship should be protected by law. Based on the available evidence, it can be determined that Tian still owes Jin the principal of the loan of 1 million yuan and the interest has not been repaid.

With regard to the first issue in dispute, according to Article 1064 of the Civil Code, if the creditor can prove that the debts incurred by one of the husband and wife in his or her own name during the existence of the marital relationship exceed the daily needs of the family, the debts may be deemed to be joint debts of the husband and wife if they can prove that the debts are 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, the loan involved in the case occurred during the existence of the husband and wife relationship between Tian and Xu, and although the two parties applied to the civil affairs department for divorce registration on January 11, 2021, they did not formally go through the divorce registration formalities after that. Moreover, during the existence of the relationship between the husband and wife, the two parties jointly operated a construction-related company, Xu also recognized the dry project, and recognized that the company's account Tian and both of them could operate it, and Xu took over the relevant project after Tian's death, combined with the loan contract stated that it was required for the project and the audio and video recordings and videos submitted by Jin to communicate with Xu, it should be determined that the loan involved in the case was used for the joint production and operation of Tian and Xu, and was a joint debt of the husband and wife. According to Article 36 of the Interpretation (1) of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, Xu should be liable for the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan.

With regard to the second issue in dispute, according to Article 1161 of the Civil Code, the heir shall pay off the debts of the decedent to the extent of the actual value of the inheritance, and if the heir renounces the inheritance, he shall not be liable for repayment. The available evidence in this case proves that Tian left two properties and a company. After Tian's death, Tian Xiao and Ma were their first-order heirs, and now they have not expressly expressed their renunciation of the inheritance of Tian's estate, so they should bear the responsibility for repaying the debts involved in the case within the scope of inheriting Tian's estate in accordance with the law.

In the end, the court ruled that Xu should repay the principal of the loan of 1 million yuan and the corresponding interest in accordance with the law, and Tian Xiaomou and Ma should repay the principal of the loan of 1 million yuan and the corresponding interest within the scope of inheriting the estate of the decedent Tian. After the judgment was rendered, all parties accepted the judgment and dismissed the lawsuit, and the judgment has now entered into force.

[Rule Analysis]:

In the existing legal system and context of the mainland, "joint debts of husband and wife" should refer to the husband and wife, as joint debtors, who are jointly and severally liable for such debts with all their assets. Therefore, it is very important to determine the joint debts of husband and wife. Article 1064 of the Civil Code clarifies the criteria for determining the joint debts of husband and wife, which are mainly divided into three levels:

The first is the debt incurred based on the joint intention of the husband and wife. It may take the form of a joint signature in advance or a retrospective endorsement by one of the parties after the fact. The method of post-event recognition is not limited to written form, and can be judged through the content recorded in telephone recordings, text messages, WeChat, emails, etc.

The second is the debt incurred for the daily needs of the family. This kind of debt is mainly the debt borne by the scope of daily family agency, which is generated in the process of living together between husband and wife, and generally includes normal food and clothing, child support and education expenses, alimony for the elderly, medical expenses of family members, etc., which is the most typical joint debt of husband and wife.

The third is a debt that exceeds the daily needs of the family, but the creditor has evidence to prove that the debt is used for the husband and wife's common life, joint production and operation, or based on the joint intention of the husband and wife. During the existence of the marital relationship, in addition to the daily family debts formed by the husband and wife due to the exercise of the power of agency in daily family affairs, they will also form other creditor's rights and debts such as large loans and gifts with third parties. In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the spouse who has not raised debts, the law clearly stipulates that the debts incurred in such cases are not joint debts of the husband and wife in principle, and imposes the burden of proof on the creditor.

[Case source]: Lufa Case [2023] No. 499

31. Debts borne by one of the husband and wife in his or her own name during the marriage that exceed the daily needs of the family are not recognized as joint debts of the husband and wife -- Li Quanjin v. Lu Zhaorong, Guo Yaoying, and Li Liang, a private loan dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

During the existence of the husband and wife relationship, if one party borrows a large amount in his or her own name, which exceeds the daily needs of the family, and is used for lending, and the creditor fails to prove that the debt is used for the common life of the husband and wife, it is not a joint debt of the husband and wife, and the other spouse does not need to bear the responsibility of repayment.

Case Number: :(2018) Hu 01 Min Zhong No. 814

32. Loans during the marriage are still repaid jointly after divorce.

[Summary of the trial]:

During the period when the defendant Yu borrowed money from the plaintiff, the two defendants were husband and wife, and they still lived together and did not live apart, although the guarantor in the personal loan contract was not signed by the defendant Tao Jing himself, the reason why the defendant Tao Jing did not bear the joint responsibility for repayment on this ground was insufficient, and according to whether the signature of the plaintiff and the defendant Yu was signed by the plaintiff and the defendant Yu, the plaintiff did not know, and the debt was indeed included in the list of debts provided by the defendant Tao Jing and written by the defendant Yu when the two parties registered the divorce. However, the division of the debt between the two defendants does not affect the plaintiff's right to require the two defendants to bear joint liability for repayment. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that the defendant Tao Jing should jointly repay the loan and the corresponding liquidated damages should be supported by this court.

Case Number: :(2016) Hu 0112 Min Chu No. 937

33. If one party claims to be a private loan, if one party claims to be a private loan, it should provide sufficient evidence to prove the agreement to borrow money - Wang v. Li, a private loan dispute case

[Summary of the trial]:

For parties with intimate status such as lovers and husband and wife, there will usually be a certain amount of money transfer between the two parties. If the party asserting the existence of a private lending legal relationship between the two parties only provides the transfer records to the court, and the other party can make a reasonable defense and interpretation, the "high degree of probability" of the existence of a lending agreement between the two parties cannot be established for the time being, and the party asserting the existence of a private lending legal relationship between the two parties also needs to submit other evidence to prove it, and if it cannot be proved, the court shall not find it to be a private lending.

34. Although one of the husband and wife holds an IOU, it cannot prove the circumstances of the loan - where the husband and wife holding the IOU claim repayment to the other party, but fail to provide evidence on the source of the loaned funds, the delivery of the money, and other facts, the conclusion of the loan cannot be drawn -- a private loan dispute between Liu and He

[Summary of the trial]:

Private lending refers to a civil legal act between natural persons, between natural persons and enterprises or other organizations, in which the lender lends the loan, and the borrower returns the loan when it is due and pays the interest according to the contract. The establishment of a civil legal act of borrowing must be premised on the agreement of the two parties, that is, the borrower and the borrower must form an agreement on the loan and actually pay the corresponding money. Where a party claims to return the loan based on the loan relationship, it shall bear the burden of proof for the necessary facts such as the loan agreement and the payment payment.

In this case, Liu and He did not agree on a separate property system after falling in love and getting married, but agreed on a separate property system for husband and wife when their marital relationship was in crisis and they had separated, and formed an IOU of 60,000 yuan the next day, and divorced through court mediation shortly after the IOU was formed. If there is indeed a loan relationship of 60,000 yuan between the two parties, according to common sense, combined with the age and education level of both parties, it should be dealt with at the time of divorce. Since the divorce agreement was signed voluntarily by both parties, and considering the identities and educational backgrounds of both parties, both parties can fully understand the true meaning and legal consequences of the IOU. Based on the special status of both parties, the sensitive period of the formation of the IOU, and the special agreement in the divorce agreement between the parties, it is not possible to conclude that there is a real, legal and effective loan relationship between the two parties based on the IOU alone. The judgment rejected Liu's application.

Case No.: :(2013) Tong Zhong Min Zhong Zi No. 1950

35. If the evidence provided by one party is insufficient to prove that there is an agreement between the two parties to lend money, and the other party claims that it was given as a gift when they are in love, the party should still bear the burden of proof for the establishment of the loan relationship - Zhang XX v. Li XX Private Lending Dispute Case

[Summary of the trial]:

If one party initiates a private lending lawsuit solely on the basis of the transfer voucher of a financial institution, and the other party claims that it was a gift made by both parties when they were in love, the party should still bear the burden of proof for the establishment of the lending relationship, and the evidence provided by the party is insufficient to prove that there is an agreement between the parties to lend money, the people's court will not support its claim for the return of the loan.

36. Regarding the joint debts of husband and wife - Li Bei and Zhao Xueru's private loan dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

The retrial court held that, on the issue of whether Zhao Minfeng should bear the liability for repayment, based on the facts ascertained in the original examination and the facts in the re-examination of this case, it can be seen that although only An Lei signed the IOU involved in the case, the relevant loans arose during the existence of the marital relationship between Zhao Minfeng and An Lei, and were used for stock speculation, which is a joint business between husband and wife. Zhao Minfeng's husband and wife joint debts.

Case Number: :(2018) Yu 07 Min Zhong No. 2674

37. The court usually recognizes the debts borne by one of the husband and wife during the marriage as joint debts of the husband and wife, and the other party shall bear joint and several liability. However, unless otherwise provided by law, the other spouse needs to bear the burden of proof, and if the evidence cannot be presented, the court will generally determine that it is a joint debt of the husband and wife - the plaintiff Liu Moujuan v. the defendants Li and Song Xiaoyan in a private lending dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

After Li and Liu Moujuan signed the loan contract, Liu Moujuan paid the amount agreed in the loan contract to Li, and Li should repay the principal and pay the agreed interest when due according to the loan contract. Li'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 Moujuan'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 husband and wife, and should bear joint responsibility for repayment of debts during the continuation of the husband and wife relationship. Therefore, Li's litigation claim has a contractual basis and a legal basis, and this court supports it.

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

38. During the existence of the relationship between husband and wife, if one party borrows money for others in his or her own name, and there is no interest difference between borrowing and lending, and it is not for business or profit, and the spouse has no agreement to jointly raise debts, it should be found to be a personal debt - Zhen X v. Zheng Mouhua Private Lending Dispute Case

[Summary of the trial]:

The other spouse has the right to defend whether the debts incurred by one of the spouses in his or her personal name during the relationship are due to the common interests of the family. When the debtor helps others to borrow money, there is no interest difference between the borrowed money and the loan, the purpose of the loan is not business or profit, and the debtor's spouse does not have an agreement to jointly borrow debts, it can be determined that the loan in dispute is the debtor's personal debt and does not belong to the joint debts of the husband and wife.

Case No.: :(2016) Min 07 Min Zhong Zi No. 811

39. If the lender is unable to prove the existence of the loan agreement, it shall bear the burden of failing to provide evidence -- Wang v. Zhang, a private lending dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

In the absence of IOUs and other proof of creditor's rights, the existence of a loan relationship needs to be determined by comprehensively considering the relationship between the lender and the borrower, the circumstances in which the money was delivered, the reasonableness of the statements of both parties, and the probative force of the evidence. If the lender claims to borrow only on the basis of the transfer voucher, it still needs to bear the burden of proof on the existence of the loan agreement between the two parties, and if the lender cannot prove the existence of the loan agreement or the actual purpose of the loan, it shall bear the burden of proof that it cannot do so.

40. A case of private lending dispute between the plaintiff Zhou and the defendants Li and Yin

[Summary of the trial]:

After review, the court held that the defendant Li Moumou should return the loan in a timely manner according to the agreement, and the current defendant Li Moumou has not returned the loan in arrears, which constitutes a breach of contract, and the plaintiff should also be repaid for overdue interest and liquidated damages for overdue repayment. When the defendant Li XX borrowed the loan, although the two defendants were husband and wife, the amount of the loan at issue was relatively large, beyond the scope of ordinary household daily expenses, and the plaintiff did not provide evidence to prove that the loan was used for the common life of the two defendants, joint production and operation, or based on the common intention of the two defendants, so this court did not support the plaintiff's claim that the defendant Yin X should jointly bear the responsibility for repayment.

[Typical significance]:

Article 3 of the Interpretation on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Debts between Husband and Wife stipulates that if one of the spouses incurs a debt in his or her own name during the existence of the marital relationship that exceeds the daily needs of the family, and the 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, unless 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 common intention of the husband and wife. In this case, the provisions of this article were applied, and the interests of the creditor and the debtor's spouse were effectively balanced through a reasonable allocation of the burden of proof.

41. The party who asserts that the external debts of one of the husband and wife belong to the joint debts of the husband and wife bears the burden of proof -- Shan Hongyuan and Liu Chunlin v. Hu Xiuhua, Shan Liang and Shan Yixian, a legal inheritance dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

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 is intended to strengthen the protection of creditors, and is generally only applicable to the treatment of external debt relationships between husband and wife. When a people's court handles a dispute involving the internal property relationship of the husband and wife, it cannot simply rely on the provisions to recognize the external debts of one of the husband or wife as joint debts of the husband and wife, and the effective judgments of other people's courts on disputes over external debts of husband and wife based on these provisions cannot be used as the basis for judgments in handling internal property disputes between husband and wife, and the party who asserts that the external debts of one of the husband or wife are joint debts of the husband and wife still bear the burden of proof to prove that the debts are indeed joint debts of the husband and wife.

Case No.: :(2005) Su Min Zhong Zi No. 61

Transferred from the same judgment rule for similar cases