Can the husband and wife issue an IOU in the direction?

case

Chen Mou is the son of Li Moumou and Chen Moumou. In November 2015, Li Moumou and Chen Moumou transferred to Chen Mou's bank card accounts to 29,000 yuan and 20,000 yuan. Chen used the above bank card to buy a car, and registered the vehicle under his name in December 2015. In May 2016, Chen issued a debit to Li Moumou and Chen Moumou, which stated that in November 2015, he borrowed 49,000 yuan from Li Moumou and Chen Moumou in November 2015. A borrowing of 29,000 yuan, Chen Moumou borrowed 20,000 yuan.

In June 2018, Li Moumou and Chen Moumou claimed to the court to ask Chen and Jimou to return the principal of 49,000 yuan and corresponding interest. In addition, Chen and Jimou registered for marriage in 2013, and signed a pre -marital property agreement, but the conflict after marriage continued. From the beginning of 2016, he resigned. In July of the same year, Chen sued to divorce. The court was not allowed to divorce. After Chen, Chen sued another divorce again.

Disagreement

In this case, there are two different views on whether Chen Mou's borrowing from Li Moumou and Chen Moumou belongs to the joint debt of the husband and wife: there are two different views:

The first point of view is that although only one party is signed, the money is used for car purchase, which belongs to the joint debt of the husband and wife that the family needs.

The second point of view is that there is no co -sign of the husband and wife, which cannot prove that there is a real loan intention and does not belong to the joint debt of the husband and wife.

Evaluate

The author agrees with the second point of view, as follows:

First of all, Article 679 of the Civil Code stipulates that the loan contract between natural persons is established when the lender provides loans.

Based on this, the delivery of loans and payments is the two basic constituent elements established by private lending relations. In this case, Chen received two payments from his parents and also issued an IOU. From a formal point of view, it seems that the borrowing relationship has been formed between the two parties. However, from the time of the formation of the debit, it is contrary to the usual practices of borrowing the borrowing relationship before paying.

Moreover, Chen and Ji Mou have a long -term disagreement with the relationship between husband and wife. The two parties also signed a pre -marital property agreement. After receiving the funds from the parents and issuing a borrowing from them, Chen did not tell Ji Mou. Chen's borrowing behavior was Obviously there is violation of the common sense.

The author believes that if the loan relationship is clear after the delivery is delivered, the relevant background of the relevant background and the meaning of the meaning of the meaning may be focused on the legitimate rights and interests of others, and the authenticity and effectiveness of the meaning of the meaning should be reviewed in accordance with the law.

Secondly, Article 104, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, stipulates that both husbands and wives sign together or the husband and wife will be consent to the debt, as well as the husband and wife's party during the marriage relationship. The debt that needs to be negative belongs to the joint debt of the husband and wife.

Based on this, children who borrow money from their parents in their personal names need to review whether there is a signature of both husband and wife or the other party to recognize the loan. At the same time, it depends on whether the money is used or exceeded the daily needs of the family. Although a certain amount of funding between parents and children is more common in daily real life, Chen has a high wage income in this case. Moreover, during the trial of the case, only proof proves that the funds on the day of their parents' funds have been received. It is indeed obviously doubtful whether you need to borrow cars because of insufficient funds.

Finally, the "Supreme People's Court's Explanation of the Later of the People's Republic of China" of the Marriage and Family Editors (1) "stipulates that the husband and wife and the third party are colluded with a fictional debt. If the debt is the common debt of the husband and wife, the people's court does not support it.

In this case, Li Moumou and Chen Moumou neither agreed with Chen to borrow interest or repay date, nor did he urge the arrears, and only filed a lawsuit in the case when Chen once again prosecuted with Ji Mou, combined with the combination After the husband and wife were separated, the borrowing of foreign borrowings and unilateral borrowings, it was difficult to determine that the money belonged to the joint debt of the husband and wife that Jimou should settle.

Author: Shanghai No. 1 Middle School Hejian

Source: People's Court Newspaper

- END -