本文選題：一方舉債　切入點(diǎn)：共同債務(wù)　出處：《鄭州大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：在市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)越發(fā)繁榮的背景下,夫妻參與經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)愈發(fā)頻繁,并時(shí)常與他人發(fā)生債權(quán)債務(wù)糾紛,特別是關(guān)涉到夫妻一方對(duì)外舉債的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定,爭(zhēng)議日漸激烈。準(zhǔn)確認(rèn)定債務(wù)性質(zhì)是屬共同債務(wù)還是個(gè)人債務(wù),成為實(shí)踐中的難點(diǎn),這其中既需體現(xiàn)對(duì)夫妻獨(dú)立人格的尊重和夫妻財(cái)產(chǎn)的保護(hù),又需彰顯債權(quán)人的利益,保護(hù)交易安全和秩序。《婚姻法》和《婚姻法司法解釋(二)》均對(duì)此問(wèn)題做出規(guī)定,由此形成了“用途論”和“推定論”兩種不同的裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn),造成了裁判者在具體適用時(shí)的尷尬境地。因此,為公平合理的處理夫妻一方對(duì)外舉債的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定問(wèn)題,應(yīng)注重區(qū)分夫妻債務(wù)的內(nèi)部和外部關(guān)系,在離婚案件和債權(quán)人起訴的債權(quán)債務(wù)糾紛案件中分別適用《婚姻法》和《婚姻法司法解釋(二)》的規(guī)定,并輔之以科學(xué)的舉證責(zé)任分配規(guī)則,以尋求案件的實(shí)質(zhì)公正。本文的結(jié)構(gòu)如下:第一章從實(shí)踐中關(guān)于夫妻一方對(duì)外舉債的典型案例入手,通過(guò)表格形式對(duì)于上述案例類(lèi)型予以梳理,提出夫妻一方對(duì)外舉債的實(shí)踐困境。第二章著重分析了夫妻一方因個(gè)人行為產(chǎn)生債務(wù)的兩種可能性質(zhì)即共同債務(wù)和個(gè)人債務(wù),將二者的概念和特征予以說(shuō)明,并提出了區(qū)分二者的實(shí)質(zhì)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn),即該債務(wù)是否為夫妻雙方合意和夫妻雙方是否分享了該債務(wù)的利益。第三章指出實(shí)踐中債務(wù)性質(zhì)認(rèn)定困惑緣于《婚姻法》和《婚姻法司法解釋(二)》不同的裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn),即“用途論“和“推定論”,并對(duì)兩標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行深入的理論分析。第四章提出單獨(dú)適用“用途論“和“推定論”均會(huì)導(dǎo)致利益的不均衡分配,故應(yīng)另辟新徑,區(qū)分夫妻債務(wù)內(nèi)部認(rèn)定規(guī)則和外部認(rèn)定規(guī)則。第五章是從夫妻債務(wù)的內(nèi)部關(guān)系入手,明確在離婚案件中,應(yīng)當(dāng)適用《婚姻法》第41條之規(guī)定,凡夫妻一方將個(gè)人舉債用于共同生活之目的,那么該項(xiàng)債務(wù)應(yīng)定性為夫妻共同債務(wù),由舉債方承擔(dān)債務(wù)用途的證明責(zé)任。若證據(jù)不充分,則認(rèn)定為舉債方個(gè)人債務(wù),配偶方不承擔(dān)債務(wù)的清償責(zé)任。第六章是從夫妻債務(wù)的外部關(guān)系分析,在債權(quán)人起訴夫妻一方或者雙方承擔(dān)債務(wù)的案件中,判定債務(wù)性質(zhì)時(shí)應(yīng)適用《婚姻法司法解釋(二)》第24條的推定規(guī)則,將債務(wù)性質(zhì)推定為共同債務(wù),優(yōu)先保障債權(quán)人的利益。若配偶方能有效舉證該規(guī)則的兩種例外情況,或者債務(wù)并未用于夫妻雙方的共同生活,則債務(wù)性質(zhì)為舉債方個(gè)人債務(wù),配偶方不負(fù)擔(dān)債務(wù)的償還責(zé)任。結(jié)語(yǔ)部分是在綜合上文的基礎(chǔ)上,總結(jié)甄別夫妻一方對(duì)外舉債性質(zhì)的新思路,既包括實(shí)體性規(guī)范同時(shí)也要加強(qiáng)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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.9

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孫曉東;濫伐17立方米林木案件性質(zhì)認(rèn)定之探討[J];江蘇綠化;2000年01期

2 ;職工傷殘性質(zhì)認(rèn)定超過(guò)規(guī)定時(shí)限勞動(dòng)保障行政部門(mén)是否受理的復(fù)函[J];勞動(dòng)理論與實(shí)踐;2001年06期

3 肖長(zhǎng)春;潘守華;;單位竊電性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[J];中國(guó)電力企業(yè)管理;2007年12期

4 王朝勇;企業(yè)性質(zhì)認(rèn)定探討[J];人民檢察;1995年01期

5 王朝勇;企業(yè)性質(zhì)認(rèn)定問(wèn)題研究[J];中央檢察官管理學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1995年03期

6 陳偉;謝菲;;家養(yǎng)名貴犬傷人被擊斃的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定 以一則現(xiàn)實(shí)案例為視角的分析[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2011年16期

7 余菁;盜竊摩托車(chē)玩樂(lè)后——丟棄案件的法律性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[J];南昌高專(zhuān)學(xué)報(bào);1994年Z1期

8 扈曉芹;;高利貸現(xiàn)象及其性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[J];山西高等學(xué)校社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2012年08期

9 劉斯凡;;錯(cuò)置的共同正犯:概念探疑與性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[J];湖北社會(huì)科學(xué);2012年10期

10 關(guān)宇輝;第三人介入既存?zhèn)鶆?wù)關(guān)系行為的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[J];法學(xué);1997年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 案例編寫(xiě)人 重慶市武隆縣人民法院 謝會(huì);股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓金中留存部分的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

2 案例編寫(xiě)人 重慶市大渡口區(qū)人民法院 曾繼川 張琴;夫妻一方擅自贈(zèng)與共同財(cái)產(chǎn)的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

3 案例編寫(xiě)人 浙江省寧波市北侖區(qū)人民法院 方指揮 王麗娜;暫支單的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

4 姚楨榮;夫妻一方借款的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2014年

5 新疆維吾爾自治區(qū)烏魯木齊市沙依巴克區(qū)人民法院 范少罡 路淼;“拆東墻補(bǔ)西墻”侵吞貨款的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

6 北京市高級(jí)人民法院 謝甄珂;對(duì)商標(biāo)部分要素進(jìn)行使用的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[N];中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2014年

7 辛紅;18部門(mén)將聯(lián)手處置非法集資[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

8 重慶市大渡口區(qū)人民法院 譚紅 張琴;公房承租權(quán)的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

9 葛峰;購(gòu)房協(xié)議的合同性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2014年

10 記者 徐德清邋通訊員 莊衛(wèi)生;我市處置非法集資聯(lián)席會(huì)議制度建立[N];常德日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 劉碩;夫妻一方對(duì)外舉債的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[D];鄭州大學(xué);2016年

2 馮偉;離婚時(shí)夫妻債務(wù)性質(zhì)認(rèn)定研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

3 田浩碩;商業(yè)銀行理財(cái)產(chǎn)品的法律性質(zhì)與監(jiān)管路徑[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2013年

4 孫帥;賭球行為的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定問(wèn)題分析[D];蘭州大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：1600286