论被执行人为夫妻一方时对共同财产的执行

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

苏雨帆

导师:

朱凡

导师单位:

民商法学院(知识产权学院)

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

夫妻共同债务;共同财产分割;强制执行

摘要:

在法院执行工作实务中,经常遇到被执行人仅为夫妻一方,但被执行人名下 唯一可供处置财产却为夫妻共同财产的情况。而作为执行依据的法律文书上,仅 举债的夫妻一方作为被告,且未对债务是否为夫妻共同债务进行确认。在这种情 况下,执行机构应该如何处理,因为没有非常具体明确的法律或司法解释的指导 而成为一大难题。各法院在执行实务中所采用的解决方式也不尽相同。本文根据 笔者工作实际,从现实案例引入,对此类情况进行分析,希望能够探讨出一种在 理论上更为理想化的,同时也便于执行机构操作的处理模式。 本文除掉引言与结论外分为三个部分,第一部分从实际案例引入,提出问题, 即法院执行实务中遇到被执行人仅为夫妻一方,却需要执行夫妻共同财产的情况 时,惯常的处理思路有哪些。接着例举常见的三种处理方式,第一种是不予执行 共有财产。第二种是先追加未举债的夫妻一方作为被执行人,然后执行共有财产。 第三种是对债务性质做出推定,然后直接裁定执行共有财产,其中又分为推定为 个人财产,或推定为夫妻共同财产。三种方式各有其考量,但也都缺乏有利的法 律支撑,或并不能达到良好的执行效果。 第二部分通过比对同类型的案例,探讨分析被执行人为夫妻一方时,能否在 执行阶段追加未举债夫妻一方为被执行人,以及审理阶段未明确债务性质时能否 执行共同财产或未举债一方个人财产的问题。同时阐述笔者观点,认为执行阶段 不可以直接追加未举债的一方作为被执行人,但对于能否执行夫妻双方共同财产, 笔者认为虽然理论上欠缺具体的实体法、程序法的支撑,但从现实执行实务的角 度考虑,从一个法院执行机构工作人员的角度考虑,执行夫妻共同的财产是无可 厚非的,并且这是大多数法院会进行的操作。在认可可以执行共同财产的情况下, 必须赋予未举债的夫妻一方充分的救济权利,笔者对可以采取的救济模式简单阐 述,探讨其合理性。 第三部分是笔者对于在被执行人为夫妻一方时,对共同财产的执行问题提出 的设想。设想基于法院执行实际,希望能从完善法律以及建设制度的方面着手, 既便利强制执行的操作,又能使执行机构的执行行为得到法律支撑,同时保障当 事人的实体权利。

学科:

法律*

提交日期

2026-04-13

引用参考

苏雨帆. 论被执行人为夫妻一方时对共同财产的执行[D]. 西南政法大学,2020.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 论被执行人为夫妻一方时对共同财产的执行
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 201510049
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 苏雨帆
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 民商法学院(知识产权学院)
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2020
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 朱凡
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 民商法学院(知识产权学院)
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 夫妻共同债务;共同财产分割;强制执行
  • dc.subject
  • community property of the husband and wife;community properties division;compulsory execution
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 在法院执行工作实务中,经常遇到被执行人仅为夫妻一方,但被执行人名下 唯一可供处置财产却为夫妻共同财产的情况。而作为执行依据的法律文书上,仅 举债的夫妻一方作为被告,且未对债务是否为夫妻共同债务进行确认。在这种情 况下,执行机构应该如何处理,因为没有非常具体明确的法律或司法解释的指导 而成为一大难题。各法院在执行实务中所采用的解决方式也不尽相同。本文根据 笔者工作实际,从现实案例引入,对此类情况进行分析,希望能够探讨出一种在 理论上更为理想化的,同时也便于执行机构操作的处理模式。 本文除掉引言与结论外分为三个部分,第一部分从实际案例引入,提出问题, 即法院执行实务中遇到被执行人仅为夫妻一方,却需要执行夫妻共同财产的情况 时,惯常的处理思路有哪些。接着例举常见的三种处理方式,第一种是不予执行 共有财产。第二种是先追加未举债的夫妻一方作为被执行人,然后执行共有财产。 第三种是对债务性质做出推定,然后直接裁定执行共有财产,其中又分为推定为 个人财产,或推定为夫妻共同财产。三种方式各有其考量,但也都缺乏有利的法 律支撑,或并不能达到良好的执行效果。 第二部分通过比对同类型的案例,探讨分析被执行人为夫妻一方时,能否在 执行阶段追加未举债夫妻一方为被执行人,以及审理阶段未明确债务性质时能否 执行共同财产或未举债一方个人财产的问题。同时阐述笔者观点,认为执行阶段 不可以直接追加未举债的一方作为被执行人,但对于能否执行夫妻双方共同财产, 笔者认为虽然理论上欠缺具体的实体法、程序法的支撑,但从现实执行实务的角 度考虑,从一个法院执行机构工作人员的角度考虑,执行夫妻共同的财产是无可 厚非的,并且这是大多数法院会进行的操作。在认可可以执行共同财产的情况下, 必须赋予未举债的夫妻一方充分的救济权利,笔者对可以采取的救济模式简单阐 述,探讨其合理性。 第三部分是笔者对于在被执行人为夫妻一方时,对共同财产的执行问题提出 的设想。设想基于法院执行实际,希望能从完善法律以及建设制度的方面着手, 既便利强制执行的操作,又能使执行机构的执行行为得到法律支撑,同时保障当 事人的实体权利。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • In the execution practice of the court, the court often encounters that the person subject to enforcement is only one of the husband or the wife, but the only property under the name of the person subject to execution is the joint property of the husband and wife. As for the legal documents as the basis of implementation, only one of the couple who borrows money is the defendant, and there is no confirmation on whether the debt is a joint debt of the couple. What the executing agency should do in such cases is a major challenge in the absence of very specific legal or judicial interpretation guidance. The solutions adopted by different courts in execution practice are also different. In this paper, based on the author's actual work, it introduces the real cases, analyzes such situation, hoping to explore a more idealized in theory, and also to facilitate the operation of the executive mechanism of the processing mode. In addition to the introduction and the conclusion, this paper is divided into three parts. The first part introduces the actual cases contacted by the author, and raises questions on what are the usual processing ideas when the person subjected to execution is only one of the husband and wife but needs to execute the joint property of the husband and wife in the daily execution practice of the court, just like the case. The first is not to make any determination of the nature of the debt, but only to strictly comply with the contents of the legal documents, and only to enforce the personal property of the husband and wife as the person subject to execution and their share in the joint property. The second is add the husband or wife that does not borrow money as person of execution, execute their jointly property. The third is to make a presumption of the nature of the debt and then directly determine the execution of the jointly property. In the three thoughts, each method has its own considerations, but all lack favorable legal supports. In the second part, by comparing the cases of the same type, the author discusses and analyzes whether the executioner is one of the husband and wife, and whether the executor is the one who has not borrowed money at the execution stage, and whether the executor can execute the joint property when the nature of the debt is not clear at the trial stage. At the same time, the paper express theview of the author, the author thinks execution phase can not be directly additional debt of one party as the person subjected to execution. But for whether can execute the jointly property of the husband and the wife, the author thinks that although the lack of specific substantive law and procedural law support in theory, but in the consideration of reality practice, from the executing agency staff's point of view, the implementation of joint property is understandable, and it will be performed by most of the court.In the case that the joint property can be recognized, one of the couple who has not borrowed money must be given full relief right. The author briefly describes the relief mode that can be adopted and discusses its rationality. The third part is the author put forward the assumptions in the case that the executor as one of the spouse, the execution of the joint property. The assumption is based on the actual implementation of the court, we hope to start from the aspects of perfecting the law and building the system, which can not only facilitate the operation of compulsory execution, but also make the execution of the enforcement agency supported by the law, and at the same time protect the substantive rights of the parties
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-04-13
回到顶部