In a marital relationship, whether the debt left by one party after their death should be repaid by the other party becomes a practical dilemma between the debtor's spouse and the creditor. Recently, the People's Court of Shayibake District, Urumqi City, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, concluded a case in which a creditor sued the debtor's spouse to assume repayment responsibility, providing judicial guidance for the parties involved. Zhang and Wang are husband and wife. At the beginning of 2024, Zhang borrowed a total of over 170000 yuan from Liu, citing the need for capital turnover for his store. In fact, this loan was obtained by Liu using multiple credit cards to cash out. On August 2, 2024, Zhang passed away, and at this time, the debt had not been fully repaid. Liu turned to Zhang's husband Wang to claim the debt. Liu believes that Zhang used the loan for a jointly operated store by her husband and wife, and the profits from the store were used for family life. Wang, as the beneficiary, should repay the loan. Wang claimed that he had no knowledge of this loan and that it was not used for family living, so it should not be considered as a joint debt between husband and wife. If the two parties failed to reach an agreement, Liu sued Wang to the court. The court identified two points of dispute during the trial. Firstly, the legal validity of the lending relationship. The judge pointed out that in the legal relationship of private lending, the lending funds of the lender must be their own legitimate income. In this case, the funds obtained by Liu from his credit card are not his own funds. According to the law, the legal relationship between Liu and Zhang in private lending is not established, and the private lending contract is invalid. Zhang should return the improper property obtained by Zhang due to the invalid contract. Secondly, whether the debt belongs to the joint debt of husband and wife. The key to this case also lies in whether it meets the requirements of "for joint living and joint production and operation of husband and wife". The court investigation found that Zhang did indeed use part of the loan for his business, which was aimed at providing a source of livelihood for the family. The bank statements retrieved by the court show that during the loan period, Zhang frequently made large transfers to Wang, with a total amount of 200000 yuan. More importantly, Wang's account has also made transfers to Liu's account. Wang was unable to provide a reasonable explanation for the specific reasons behind these transfers. Article 1064 of the Civil Code stipulates that debts incurred by both spouses through joint signatures 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 marriage, are considered joint debts of the spouses. Based on the comprehensive evidence of the case, the court believes that the loan contract is invalid, and the funds obtained by Zhang belong to unjust enrichment that should be returned. The debt was incurred during the existence of the marital relationship, and there is evidence that it was used for joint production and operation. Wang's account also participated in the repayment, which is sufficient to determine that the debt was used for the joint life and production and operation of the couple. Now that Zhang has passed away, according to relevant judicial interpretations, the surviving spouse Wang should bear joint and several liability for the joint debts of the couple. The court ruled that Wang should repay Liu's loan of over 170000 yuan within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment, and the judgment has come into effect. The judge stated that according to Chinese law, there are three situations that can be recognized as joint debts between spouses. One is joint debt co signing, which means that both husband and wife jointly sign the loan agreement, loan contract and other debt documents, or jointly express their intention to borrow from the creditor. The second is retrospective recognition. When borrowing, only one party signs, but afterwards the spouse clearly expresses their willingness to jointly repay the debt through written, text message, phone recording, or other means, or acknowledges it through actual repayment, all of which can be regarded as retrospective recognition of the debt. Thirdly, it is used for the joint life and production and operation of husband and wife, that is, during the existence of the marital relationship, the debt borne by one party in the name of an individual, if used for daily household expenses, children's education, elderly care, joint production and operation, etc., even if the other party does not sign or later does not recognize it, it should usually be recognized as joint debt of husband and wife. The judge reminds creditors that when lending money (especially large amounts of funds), they should require both spouses to sign and confirm together as much as possible, and retain evidence of "joint debt and joint signature". If only one party borrows money, attention should be paid to collecting and retaining evidence that proves the funds are used for the debtor's marital life or joint production and operation, such as communication records, transfer vouchers, business transaction documents, etc. For one spouse, attention should be paid to their borrowing behavior. If it is found that the spouse has borrowed money in their personal name and has not used the money for family living together, relevant evidence should be retained. When couples engage in joint production and operation, attention should be paid to distinguishing between personal property and family property, as well as between business accounts and family accounts, in order to avoid confusion. In addition, regarding this case, the judge specifically stated the need to establish a legal awareness of borrowing and lending. The act of lending credit cards to cash out for private lending is not protected by law. Credit card funds belong to bank credit funds, not the lender's own funds. Taking credit cards and lending them to others not only violates financial management regulations, but also leads to the invalidity of private lending contracts. The act of cashing out may also cause credit card delinquency and credit damage. If the circumstances are serious, corresponding legal responsibilities must be borne. (New Society)