The civil cases regulation, issued by the supreme court in previous years, does not provide for such matters as the “disputation of the joint debt of spouses”, but the court may not dismiss the case or dismiss the complaint for lack of cause, and the people's court shall issue a judgement confirming or failing to confirm the joint debt of the spouses, subject to an entity review. This practice also provides a new avenue of redress for the implementation difficulties that are common in judicial practice, such as the “non-retribution of money in court”。
See the case:
Case 1
The court found that
The court found, after examination, that there was a question as to whether the case was one of confirmation and whether the action initiated in the case was time-barred. A confirmed claim is a claim by a party requesting the people's court to confirm the existence or non-existence of a civil legal relationship, and a claim by a party requesting the court to order the other party to perform certain civil obligations. The petition was “to confirm that the defendant, shin huaping, who was determined by judgement no. 84, was interested in paying the principal amount of $9. 68 million and the interest and attorney's fee guarantee of $80,000 in respect of the loan, in respect of a joint debt with a husband and wife”. The application was to confirm that the debt in question was a joint debt of the husband and wife and that the original judgement found that the action in question was not wrongful. The statute of limitations regime applied only to claims, which was confirmed in the present case and did not apply to the statute of limitations. In view of the fact that the complaint was filed with the applicant during the period of the debt bond, claiming responsibility for the guarantee, the original decision did not unduly support huang's claim that the statute of limitations and the guarantee period had been exceeded. The question of whether the debt in question is a joint debt of the spouses. Article 3 of the supreme people's court's interpretation of the law applicable to disputes relating to spouses' debt cases provides that: “a spouse who, in his or her personal capacity, exceeds in his or her personal capacity the obligations required for the daily life of the family during the marriage, a creditor who claims his or her rights on the ground that it is a joint debt of the spouses shall not be supported by the people's court, except where the creditor can prove that the debt was used for the common living of the couple, for the joint production of the business, or on the basis of a common intention of both spouses.” in the present case, where the borrower is wpc, which is a limited liability company owned exclusively by natural persons, the shareholders of the company claim that the company supervises a relationship between a spouse and a spouse and that the company's business status determines the family's earnings, wpc actually operates jointly with wpc, which guarantees wpc's debt and is in fact a debt of interest to the family. (2018) the entry into force of judgement no. 597 of the people's republic of china confirms the fact that the supervision of a certain company is consistent with the public information of the business register of the company, which is sufficient to establish the identity of huang's supervisor and does not require the identification of the handwriting of huang in the business register. The original judgement found that the secured debt in the present case was a well-founded and legal basis for claiming a joint debt with huang. With regard to the issue of the debt in the case in question, the debt in question had already been confirmed in judgement no. 84, which had found that huang had erred in that case. The original decision found that the evidence submitted by huang had not been sufficient to substantiate his claim。
I'm sorry
Case index: (2020) supreme court of france no. 2755
Case 2
The court found that
The court considered that, in the light of the grounds for and the request for action before the court of first instance, it was requested that the debt for the violation of rights arising out of the traffic accident should be recognized as the joint debt of liu and wang, who were jointly and severally liable as the joint debtor. It was therefore inappropriate for the original court of first and second instance to decide that the case should be dismissed as a tort dispute. In accordance with article 41 of the marriage law of the people's republic of china and articles 2 and 3 of the interpretation of the supreme people's court on issues relating to the law applicable to the hearing of cases involving spousal debt disputes, whether or not it constitutes a joint debt of the spouses is primarily an expression of the intention of the spouses to raise the debts jointly. In the present case, where li had no fault in the traffic accident, was not a co-perpetrator of the violation, nor was there any indication of the intention of co-locating the debt, the debt for the violation should be considered to be a personal debt of liu, not a joint debt of husband and wife, and the application for confirmation that liu's fault was a joint debt of husband and wife should be dismissed. Thus, neither the decision to dismiss the complaint nor the judgement to reject its claim would affect or alter its substantive rights in the case of law no. 1, law no. 2. Initiation of the re-trial proceedings would only increase the burden of action on the parties and would not facilitate the determination of the relationship of rights and obligations between the parties as soon as possible, or the conservation of judicial resources。
I'm sorry
Case index (2019) no. 4039 zhumin shin
