夫妻“共签共债”规范的功能优化——以家事法目的性介入模式为指引  

Function Optimization of the Norm of “Joint Signing of Community Debt” by Both Spouses——Application of Purposive Intervention Mode of Family Law

作　　者：魏小来 WEI Xiaolai(Daoli District People’s Court,Harbin Heilongjiang,150076,China)

机构地区：[1]哈尔滨市道里区人民法院,黑龙江哈尔滨150076

出　　处：《西南石油大学学报（社会科学版）》2023年第1期73-83,共11页Journal of Southwest Petroleum University(Social Sciences Edition)

摘　　要：夫妻“共签共债”模式从司法解释进入《民法典》,确立了其在民法中的重要地位。当前,我国学界对夫妻“共签共债”入典的合理性以及司法适用价值存在争议。从理论层面来看,对夫妻“共签共债”规范的争议源于在道德层面、经济层面、入典必要性层面存在的肯定说与否定说的对立;从司法实践观察,夫妻“共签共债”模式存在诉讼权利和实体权利的失衡问题。《民法典》的基本原则、主要法条、司法解释贯穿夫妻“共签共债”活动始终,而夫妻生活的亲密性、伦理性和隐私性压缩了家事法的适用空间,故目的性介入模式在夫妻“共签共债”规范的功能优化中具有适用正当性。家事法目的性介入婚姻家庭处理夫妻“共签共债”法律问题,需要接受后果主义思维的指引,从触及底线性道德、家庭内部调整功能失灵、夫妻共同体的解除与个人权利意识的觉醒三个维度由浅入深地推进。The Civil Code establish the significance of the mode of “joint signing of community debt”,but scholars disagree about its legitimacy and applicability. Theoretically,the dispute over the legal norms of “joint signing of community debt” by both spouses in China stems from the positive and negative views on the moral,economic and necessity aspects. In judicial practice,there exists an imbalance between litigation rights and substantive rights in norms of “joint signing of community debt” by both spouses. Therefore,the“purposive intervention mode” in which the state selectively intervenes in the internal behavior of the family has legitimacy in the activity of optimizing the normative function of the “joint signing of community debts” by both spouses. On the one hand,the“purposive intervention mode” requires that the optimization activities be guided by “consequentialism”;on the other hand,it requires progressive promotion in tackling the morality bottom line,failure of family adjustment function,and dissolution of the marital community and awakening of awareness of individual rights.

关 键 词：家事法 目的性介入 共签共债 法律适用 后果主义 

分 类 号：DF551[政治法律—民商法学]