《中华人民共和国民法典》(以下简称《民法典》)及其司法解释对夫妻一方侵权之债属于共同债务还是个人债务尚未作出明确规定,这导致司法实践中对同一侵权之债的性质难以认定,同案不同判的现象在各地法院都频繁出现。否定说、肯定说、区...《中华人民共和国民法典》(以下简称《民法典》)及其司法解释对夫妻一方侵权之债属于共同债务还是个人债务尚未作出明确规定,这导致司法实践中对同一侵权之债的性质难以认定,同案不同判的现象在各地法院都频繁出现。否定说、肯定说、区分说等理论也存在分歧,为平衡债权人与债务人及其配偶的利益冲突,将夫妻一方侵权之债定性为夫妻共同债务,再确立无辜配偶权益的保护制度。债务共担体现了夫妻利益共同体的实际,强化了对弱者的保护。在夫妻债务共担会显失公平的情况下,对责任财产进行限定,确定夫妻共同财产与侵权人个人财产的清偿顺序和无辜配偶的内部追偿权,保护非侵权方的配偶权益。The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code) and its judicial interpretation have not made clear whether the tort debt of one of the spouses belongs to a joint debt or an individual debt, which leads to the difficulty in judicial practice to identify the nature of the same tort debt, and the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case frequently appears in local courts. Negative, affirmative and differentiated theories also diverge, and in order to balance the conflict of interest between creditors, debtors and their spouses, the tort debt of one of the spouses is characterized as the joint debt of the husband and wife, and then the protection system of the rights and interests of innocent spouses is established. Debt sharing reflects the reality of the husband and wife interest community and strengthens the protection of the weak. In the case that the sharing of marital debt is obviously unfair, the liability property is limited, the settlement order of the joint property of the husband and wife and the personal property of the infringer are determined, and the innocent spouse’s internal rights of recovery are protected, so as to protect the spouse rights of the non-infringing party.展开更多
文摘《中华人民共和国民法典》(以下简称《民法典》)及其司法解释对夫妻一方侵权之债属于共同债务还是个人债务尚未作出明确规定,这导致司法实践中对同一侵权之债的性质难以认定,同案不同判的现象在各地法院都频繁出现。否定说、肯定说、区分说等理论也存在分歧,为平衡债权人与债务人及其配偶的利益冲突,将夫妻一方侵权之债定性为夫妻共同债务,再确立无辜配偶权益的保护制度。债务共担体现了夫妻利益共同体的实际,强化了对弱者的保护。在夫妻债务共担会显失公平的情况下,对责任财产进行限定,确定夫妻共同财产与侵权人个人财产的清偿顺序和无辜配偶的内部追偿权,保护非侵权方的配偶权益。The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code) and its judicial interpretation have not made clear whether the tort debt of one of the spouses belongs to a joint debt or an individual debt, which leads to the difficulty in judicial practice to identify the nature of the same tort debt, and the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case frequently appears in local courts. Negative, affirmative and differentiated theories also diverge, and in order to balance the conflict of interest between creditors, debtors and their spouses, the tort debt of one of the spouses is characterized as the joint debt of the husband and wife, and then the protection system of the rights and interests of innocent spouses is established. Debt sharing reflects the reality of the husband and wife interest community and strengthens the protection of the weak. In the case that the sharing of marital debt is obviously unfair, the liability property is limited, the settlement order of the joint property of the husband and wife and the personal property of the infringer are determined, and the innocent spouse’s internal rights of recovery are protected, so as to protect the spouse rights of the non-infringing party.
