摘要
《<婚姻法>司法解释(二)》第24条存在"三大错误"与"保护债权人的虚假功能",之后出台的相关司法解释无法从根本上解决问题,支持第24条的"内外有别论""婚后所得共同财产决定论""有利于保护债权人"等理论也无法自圆其说。2018年1月18日起施行的最高人民法院《关于审理涉及夫妻债务纠纷案件适用法律有关问题的解释》废止了以婚姻存续关系(或财产共有关系)推定夫妻共同债务的规则和举证规则,确立了除夫妻合意外,一方负债必须用于家事需要才能构成共同债务的规则。在适用该解释时应注意其并未确立"共债共签"原则,部分内容有待完善,需要正确处理该解释与第24条的适用关系以及该解释的溯及力问题。
There exist three mistakes and a false function of creditor protection in the Article 24 of Interpretation of the Supreme People＇s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People＇s Republic of China（II）. The subsequent relevant judicial interpretations did not help solve the problems and supportive theories as the difference of inside and outside, the decision by common income after a marriage, the benefit for creditor protection cannot add up. The Interpretation of the Supreme People＇s Court on Relevant Issues concerning Application of Law in the Trial of Marital Debts Disputes in 2018 repeals presumption and evidence rules on marital common debts with a marriage or a property co-ownership, and establishes the common debts rules only with family affair needs except consensus of the parties. However, the principle of common debts only with joint signature is not established and partial content needs to be improved. Furthermore, the application of relationship between the interpretation and the Article24, and the interpretation＇s retroactive effect should be dealt with properly.
作者
王礼仁
Wang Liren(Yichang Intermediate People＇s Court, Yichang 443000 , Chin)
出处
《湖北警官学院学报》
2018年第2期93-106,共14页
Journal of Hubei University of Police
关键词
夫妻共同债务
夫妻个人债务
家事代理
共同财产制
分别财产制
共债共签
共签共债
善意债权人
Couple Common Debt
Couple Individual Debt
Family Affair Agency
Community Property System
Separate Property System
Common Debt with Joint Signature
Common Debt Formed by Joint Signature
Bona Fide Creditor
