The Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Civil Code") is known as the "encyclopedia of social life". Marriage, divorce, contract signing, investment and sales The Civil Code weaves a protective net for the activities of civil subjects in all fields. On the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the promulgation of the Civil Code, People's Daily Online has compiled typical cases closely related to people's lives for readers. This article focuses on the issue of joint debt between spouses. Ms. Feng and Mr. Tian are husband and wife, and they have a son named Xiaotian. From 2019 to June 2022, Ms. Feng borrowed a total of 1.15 million yuan from Mr. Zhang multiple times to improve the living conditions of her son Xiaotian's family. Ms. Feng signed a loan agreement with Mr. Zhang in her personal name, and these loans were used by Ms. Feng to pay the down payment for her son Xiaotian's house purchase and repay the loan. The loan transfer and issuance of the promissory note were all operated by Ms. Feng alone, and Mr. Tian was not aware of this and did not sign the promissory note in the name of the borrower. Due to Ms. Feng's failure to repay Mr. Zhang as promised and multiple unsuccessful requests, Mr. Zhang sued Ms. Feng, Mr. Tian, their son Xiaotian, and daughter-in-law Xiaosun in court, demanding that the four parties jointly bear the responsibility for repayment. Mr. Zhang believes that Ms. Feng's loan is for her and Mr. Tian's son Xiaotian to purchase a house, therefore the loan belongs to the joint debt of husband and wife, and Mr. Tian should bear the repayment responsibility. Meanwhile, the Oda family actually used the loan to purchase a house and repay the loan, therefore, Oda and his wife, children, and grandchildren should also bear the responsibility for repayment. Ms. Feng acknowledges the aforementioned loan and states that it is her personal loan. Mr. Tian stated that the loan was not used for the couple's shared life and has nothing to do with it. He was also unaware of the loan and their finances are separate. He is unwilling to repay the loan. Oda and his wife and grandchildren believe that the two are not borrowers, and the loan was personally borrowed by their mother, Ms. Feng, without knowing the source of the funds. Therefore, the two should not repay Mr. Zhang's loan. The People's Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing, after trial, found that the plaintiff Mr. Zhang submitted the loan agreement and transfer records issued by the defendant Ms. Feng to him, and Ms. Feng also acknowledged the fact that she borrowed money from Mr. Zhang. Therefore, a legal relationship of private lending was established between the two parties. Now that the defendant Ms. Feng has not repaid the payment as agreed, the plaintiff Mr. Zhang's lawsuit request for Ms. Feng to repay the principal and related interest has been supported by the court. Mr. Zhang advocates that the loan is a joint debt between husband and wife, and Mr. Tian, the husband of Ms. Feng, should bear the repayment obligation. The court held that Ms. Feng signed a loan agreement with Mr. Zhang in her personal name, and Mr. Tian did not sign the loan agreement in the name of the borrower, nor did he confirm the loan afterwards. Moreover, the loan involved in the case clearly exceeded the daily living expenses of the family, and Mr. Zhang did not provide evidence to prove that Ms. Feng used the loan for the joint life or business of the couple. In addition, Mr. Tian also advocates that his finances are separate from Ms. Feng's. In summary, the court determined that the loan does not belong to the joint debt of husband and wife, and Mr. Tian is not responsible for repayment. Regarding whether Xiaotian and his wife Xiaosun should bear the responsibility for repayment, the court believes that the evidence provided by Mr. Zhang cannot prove that he reached a loan agreement with Xiaotian and Xiaosun, and Xiaotian and Xiaosun did not recognize or agree to repay the loan. Therefore, Xiaotian and Xiaosun do not need to repay the loan. In the end, the court ruled that Ms. Feng should personally bear the repayment responsibility for Mr. Zhang. The case has come into effect. Article 1064 of the Civil Code stipulates that debts incurred by joint signatures of both spouses or subsequent recognition by one spouse, as well as debts incurred by one spouse in their personal name for daily household needs during the existence of the marital relationship, are considered joint debts of the spouses. Any debt incurred by one spouse in their personal capacity during the existence of the marriage that exceeds the daily needs of the family is not considered a joint debt of the couple; However, the creditor can prove that the debt is used for the joint life, production and operation of the couple, or based on the joint intention of both parties. Whether it is a joint debt between husband and wife or other debts, the key to whether repayment should be made is whether there is an intention to borrow or repay. In cases involving joint debts between husband and wife, if both parties sign and confirm or one party later confirms, it is naturally deemed that both parties have expressed their intention to borrow money. The debt borne by one spouse in their personal name, if used for joint living and business, can still be presumed to be based on a joint expression of intention, even if the other spouse has not directly borrowed from external sources. Therefore, if one spouse borrows money to purchase a house for their adult child without the consent or recognition of the other spouse, and the adult child has the ability to work and full civil capacity, and the parents do not have a legal obligation to support them, the debt belongs to the personal behavior of one spouse and is not a necessary expense for the couple's joint life or production and operation, and does not constitute a joint debt of the couple. In addition, in civil lending dispute cases, it is common for the borrower to be inconsistent with the actual borrower, and in this case, there is also a discrepancy between the actual borrower and the borrower. Whether the actual user should bear responsibility should also be based on whether they have the intention to borrow or repay from the lender. If there is no intention of borrowing between the actual user and the lender or no subsequent agreement to repay, the lender's request for repayment from the actual user lacks basis. If the actual user, although not directly expressing their intention to borrow from the lender, promises to repay afterwards, then the actual user constitutes a debt addition, and the lender can claim that the actual borrower bears the responsibility for repayment. (New Society)