Li and Wang, a man from Xihu District, Nanchang City, got married in 2006. They later divorced in April 2019 due to emotional discord. But five months after the divorce, Li borrowed 1.1 million yuan from his friend Xu on the grounds of capital turnover, and asked Xu to transfer it to his ex-wife Wang. In the following years, Li failed to repay the loan. In April 2021, Xu sued Li and Wang to court, requesting them to jointly repay the principal and interest of the loan of 1.1 million yuan.

But Wang believed that he and his ex-husband Li had already dissolved their marriage before borrowing the money. He borrowed money from Xu at Li’s request, but after the money entered the account, it was immediately transferred to Li. . Moreover, Xu and her ex-husband Li did not sign the IOU. The loan was borrowed by Li from beginning to end and had nothing to do with him, so he should not be liable for repayment.

The borrower, Xu, believed that at that time, Li had already explained that the couple was borrowing money together. For this reason, he also communicated with Wang through instant messaging tools and kept screenshots of the chat. During the chat, Wang showed a copy of their marriage certificate to prove that he and Li were not divorced, and asked me to transfer 1.1 million yuan into her account. Later, based on trust, I only asked Li to issue an IOU. It can be seen from the IOU that Li and Xu agreed on the repayment date and interest, and agreed on detailed obligations. The date stated that "Li borrowed 1.1 million yuan from Xu, and the loan date was from September 24, 2019 to October 23, 2019, with a monthly interest of 2 cents." However, the borrower column on the IOU was only Li. The signature did not contain Wang’s signature.

In fact, based on the existing evidence and the respective statements of both parties, the debt is well-founded. The focus of the dispute is whether Wang should bear the obligation to repay the money jointly. The issue Wang defended is also a difficult point involved in private lending. If the marriage relationship between Wang and Li still exists, according to the evidence in the case, the money is legal and should be a joint debt of the husband and wife.

However, the point at which this debt currently exists is exactly after the marriage between Wang and Li was dissolved, and the IOU as the loan voucher contract only has Li’s signature. If the burden of proof is fairly distributed, , it would be difficult for Xu to ask Wang to bear the same debt. According to Wang’s defense, after the couple divorced, Li borrowed money in his personal name and should be deemed Li’s personal loan.

But some people believe that even though the debt occurred after Li and Wang divorced, Xu just borrowed the money based on the trust in the relationship between the couple and asked Wang for verification. In view of the The internal relationship between the husband and wife is not public and involves privacy issues. It is impossible for Xu to investigate whether the two parties are divorced. Therefore, the debt should be treated as a joint debt, and Wang and Li should bear joint and several liability.

So should it be regarded as a loan from Li, or a debt shared by both parties? The joint debt of husband and wife refers to the debt borne by both parties or one party for the joint life during the existence of the husband and wife relationship. Therefore, the time of occurrence of the joint debt of husband and wife needs to be from the formal establishment of the marriage relationship to the termination of the marriage relationship. Time stops. The time when Li borrowed money and issued the IOU occurred after the termination of the relationship between Li and Wang as husband and wife, and was not considered a joint debt between husband and wife.

Judging from the details of this case, after the divorce, Wang and Li still borrowed money from their friend Xu in the name of husband and wife, and Wang took the initiative to provide copies of their marriage certificates. Although Wang was not present The IOU was signed, but Xu reached an agreement on the loan with Li because of his trust in the relationship between Wang and Li. It should be determined that Xu lent the money to both Wang and Li. significance.

In other words, although it cannot be regarded as a joint debt between husband and wife, the chat records between Wang and Xu prove that the 1.1 million yuan was transferred to the account in his own name according to Wang’s designation. As for whether Wang could transfer the 1.1 million yuan to Li, it was his own disposal and he could not be exempted from liability. Therefore, Wang still needs to bear the same repayment obligation for the 1.1 million yuan loan.

The Xihu District Court also finally ruled that Wang must bear the same repayment obligation, and both parties also expressed their intention to abort the lawsuit and accept the verdict.

So the question is, since the amount is not a joint debt of the couple, why do they need to bear joint repayment obligations instead of joint repayment obligations? The author believes that this case was determined to be a debt of the same entity as the debtor. The two parties constituted the same entity as the debtor based on factual reasons and should jointly bear the obligation to repay the debt. The court's decision was very appropriate.

First, my country's Civil Code stipulates that "joint and several obligations shall be determined by legal provisions or by agreement between the parties." There is a lack of understanding of whether debts raised by husband and wife to a third party after divorce should be joint debts of the husband and wife. There are no regulations, and it is basically impossible to stipulate the form of debt obligations under this situation. Joint liability, as a form of civil liability, needs to be subject to legal regulations or agreement between the parties.

Secondly, judging from the relationship between the two parties, especially the point at which the debt occurred, Wang and Li had legally terminated their marriage before the loan occurred. The relationship between husband and wife ended, and the creditor lent money to Wang and Li who had a "husband and wife relationship" out of benevolence. In fact, the existence of the two people had a relationship with ***, that is, "according to a certain reason" "Several persons who have established a "common relationship", based on the "common relationship" and "enjoy the ownership system of one thing", should bear the obligation to repay the debts jointly.

Thirdly, the difference between *** and *** joint debtors and joint debtors is that, regarding indivisible payments, several debtors can only make joint and collaborative payments based on factual or legal reasons, that is, It is said that creditors can request equal payment from all debtors. In fact, Li and Wang constitute a consortium of debtors. The debts incurred in the process of maintaining the consortium should be the joint debts of both parties. Therefore, Wang should not bear joint liability, but It is the same as the debt repayment obligation.