于私法自治与团体主义之间——《民法典》夫妻共同债务认定规则的解释方向

Between Private Autonomy and Solidarity:Interpretation on Identification of the Community Debts of Spouses in Civil Code

就夫妻共同债务的认定,比较法上存在两种截然不同的模式:“婚内标准”模式和“共同意思”模式。“婚内标准”模式符合夫妻债务制度的双重统一原则:“债务与财产相统一”和“债务与管理相统一”,充分实践了私法自治,但不利于非举债配偶方的利益保障,需要配套三项法律技术工具。“共同意思”模式切实强化了非举债配偶方的利益保护,真正践行了婚姻家庭的团体主义价值,但有违于“债务与财产相统一原则”,有碍于私法自治;此外,“共同意思”模式将夫妻共同债务等同于夫妻连带债务,也不符合“债务与管理相统一原则”。应依据夫妻债务的双重统一原则解释《民法典》第1604条,扩张夫妻共同债务的适用范围。

Regarding the identification of the community debts of spouses,there are two legislative models in comparative law:the“marital standard”and the“mutual intent standard”.The“marital standard”conforms to the dual principles of the marital debt system,and fully performs the principle of individual autonomy.However,it often violates the interests of the other spouse.Although the“mutual intent standard”has effectively strengthened the protection of the interests of the spouse who doesn’t sign the debt,it violates the dual principles,and may hinder individual independence and autonomy.Both two legislative models establish a series of supplemental legal institutions.