Research On The Proof Of Community Debt Of Spouses

Whether the unilateral debt of couple can be identified as the community debt of spouses has been one of the hot issues in our legal theory and judicial practice for many years.The proof of the community debt of spouses is the core of it,mainly including the burden of proof and the the burden of producing evidence.At present,the distribution of the community debt of spouses is mainly based on Article 41 of the Marriage Law,Article 24,paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Judicial Interpretation(II)of Marriage Law,and the first three articles of Interpretation of Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Cases Concerning Disputes over the Debt of Spouses,Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 91 of the Judicial Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law are distributed.The burden of proof is determined by the internal logic of the substantive law and does not change with the litigation process.The the burden of producing evidence is based on the rules of burden of proof and the specific evidence of the parties,and the transfer of the judge's free testimony between the parties is the focus of factual determination.Through the development of theory and practice,the five defined range for “common life”,“time presumption”,“common benefit”,“daily household matters authority” and “consensus of couples” have been gradually established.The standard of living together is the standard established by the Marriage Law and should be followed.The presumption of time is determined by the first paragraph of Article 24 of The Judicial Interpretation(II)of Marriage Law.Due to the lack of presumption of facts,there is a problem with the application results.It has been explained by the Law on nterpretation of Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Cases Concerning Disputes over the Debt of Spouses.Based on the standard of common life,the interpretation establishes multiple defined range for the consensus of couples,common benefit and daily household matters authority.The party's meaning is prioritized,and it is impossible to prove whether the party has a consensus,whether the debt is used for family life or whether the debtor is judged by the debt benefit.The responsibility for presenting evidence should be reasonably allocated in accordance with the provisions of this interpretation.The overview of the analysis of the burden of proof of the community debt of spouses and the burden of producing evidence.The burden of proof of the community debt of spouses shall be borne by the creditor.The burden of proof and the responsibility for presenting evidence shall be uniform at the beginning of the litigation.Therefore,the creditor needs to first provide evidence to prove it.As a party to this certificate,the creditor needs to achieve a higher standard of proof.The judge must temporarily form a testimony and the burden of producing the evidence can be transferred to the other party.When the burden of producing the evidence is transferred to the debtor's party,the debtor as a counter-certification party needs to achieve a lower standard of proof,and only needs to obscure the evalutional of the evidence of the judge.The proof of the community debt of spouses is the main content that the analysis of the debt liability for the constituent elements of the husband and wife.The requirements for the community debt of spouses are divided into whether the debtor and his or her spouse have a loan agreement and whether the debt is used for family life.Whether the debt is used for family life can be specifically divided into whether the debt belongs to the daily life of the husband and wife family and whether the debt exceeds the daily life of the family.The creditor needs to prove that the debtor and his or her spouse have a loan and agree,and need to reach a high degree of probabilistic standard,and the debtor side will rebut.The debtor side needs to obscure the judge's heart certificate.If the judge's evalutional of the evidence is not obscured,it must bear the unfavorable consequences.In the same way,creditors need to provide evidence that the debt is within the daily life of the family or beyond the daily life of the family.The judges need to determine the debt to be the normal family's expenses in order to maintain basic operations based on the life experience and regional standards,combined with the debt quota.The debt is initially determined to meet the daily consumption of the family,and the debtor should deny it and make a reasonable explanation.Creditors need to continue to present evidence that the debt is used for common life or that the debtor's spouse benefits.In cases where the creditor's evidence is insufficient,the evidence cannot be blamed on the creditor,and the debtor can make a reasonable explanation,the creditor can be required to provide a corresponding clue,and the debtor can reasonably explain the clue.If the debtor deliberately fails to make a reasonable explanation and the situation is sham,it can make a determination against it.The parties could disproof the law stipulates two reasons for the community debt of spouses.In the process of hearing a couple's debt dispute case,the burden of proof of the fictitious debt is borne by the creditor,because the debtor's spouse's claim of fictitious debt is a denial of the establishment of the creditor's right.If the debtor's spouse submits evidence,the judge's temporary testimony of the establishment of the creditor's right is blurred.Creditors need to continue to strengthen the evalutional of the evidence of the judge.In the process of identifying false litigation,the judge needs to exert certain enthusiasm for the review of the requirements for the establishment of creditor's rights.In the determination of illegal debts,it is necessary to combine the debtor's bad habits,whether there are administrative penalties or criminal cases,the degree of familiarity of the debtor and the creditor,the amount of the debt,and the number of debts to determine whether it constitutes an illegal debt.Through the evidence presented by the parties,until the judge forms a testimony as to whether the debt constitutes an illegal debt.