论文部分内容阅读
为防止夫妻一方在离婚纠纷诉讼过程中恶意转移夫妻共同财产,诉讼保全措施成为遏制上述财产转移行为的有效手段。但司法实践中,即使一方当事人已采取财产保全措施,另一方当事人可通过反担保将上述夫妻共同财产“置换”出来,从法律上解套并实现财产转移目的 [1]。又因离婚诉讼的特殊性,可能存在第一次离婚诉讼被驳回之后,需等待六个月之后才能再次提起诉讼的情形[2]。尽管财产转移的行为是否恶意或是否侵犯另一方当事人合法权益尚待法庭审查判定,但若最终成立,将导致申请方的利益受损,则反担保财产是否应承担起损害赔偿责任及其价值定义,人民法院在审查此类反担保措施时的裁量因素与标准,是本文探究的重点和难点所在,亦是家事审判改革的方向之一。
In order to prevent the husband and wife from maliciously transferring the common property of husband and wife during the litigation of divorce dispute, the litigation preservation measure has become an effective way to stop the transfer of property. However, in judicial practice, even if one party has adopted the property preservation measure, the other party may ’replace ’ the common property of the spouse through counter-guarantee and dislodge and realize the purpose of property transfer [1]. Due to the particularity of the divorce proceedings, there may be situations where the first divorce proceedings can be resumed after waiting for six months after the divorce proceedings have been rejected [2]. Although whether the transfer of property is malicious or whether the infringement of the lawful rights and interests of the other party remains to be examined and decided by the court, if the ultimate result is that the interests of the claimant will be damaged, then the counter-guarantee property should bear the liability for damages and its value definition The discretion and standard of the people’s court in examining such countervailing measures are the key points and difficulties in this article and one of the directions for the trial reform of the family affairs.