As per provision of 517 of China Civil Code,Creditors consist of two or more individuals, and the subject matter is divisible, with each party enjoying their respective shares
If there is a debt, it is a proportionate debt; The debtor consists of two or more persons, and the subject matter can be divided according to their respective shares
For those who bear debts, it is a proportionate debt.
If it is difficult to determine the share of the creditor or debtor by share, it shall be deemed that the share is equal.

Case Summary
The defendant Pi and the third party Wu were originally husband and wife, and the second plaintiff was the third party Wu
Parents. In early July 2013, the defendant Pi and a third party Wu requested a loan from the second plaintiff to purchase a building located at 3-2- XXX in Feicui Garden Community, Huogezhuang Town, Baodi District. On July 10, 2013, the plaintiff Hou transferred 100000 yuan from his own Tianjin Rural Commercial Bank card (account number 62 XXX 49) to the defendant Pi’s Agricultural Bank of China card (account number 62 XXX 13). Later, due to the need for renovation of the building, the third party Wu borrowed 30000 yuan from the second plaintiff. On January 21, 2014, the defendant Pi and the third party Wu issued a promissory note for the plaintiff, which stated that they borrowed 100000 yuan and 30000 yuan from their parents for buying a house and renovating the house. Pi and Wu signed the promissory note. The two plaintiffs are now suing the defendant Pi for refusing to repay the 65000 yuan loan they should bear to the court.

Court ruling

The court holds that legitimate lending relationships are protected by law. Due to the defendant Pi and the third party Wu
The two parties were originally in a marital relationship, and the above-mentioned debt was incurred during the existence of the marital relationship between the defendant Pi and the third party Wu for the joint purchase of a building. Therefore, the above-mentioned debt should be treated as a joint marital debt and should be jointly repaid by the defendant Pi and the third party Wu. Although the second plaintiff claims that the third party Wu has already repaid the second plaintiff’s loan of 65000 yuan, and the disputed 65000 yuan in this case, the second plaintiff only demands that the defendant Pi be responsible for repayment, and does not require the third party Wu to repay. In this regard, the court believes that because the joint debt of husband and wife is an inseparable debt, its nature belongs to joint and several debt, and the defendant Pi and the third party Wu agreed that the building located in the 3-2- XX building of Feicui Garden Community, Huogezhuang Town, Baodi District, which belongs to Wu at the time of divorce in court, and the loan of 130000 yuan from the plaintiff was borrowed to purchase the building. At the same time, the second plaintiff is the parents of the third party Wu. Abandoning the lawsuit against one of the debtors, the third party Wu Mou2, will inevitably increase the obligations of the defendant Pi Mou, which violates the principle of fairness in civil law. The second plaintiff claims that the third party Wu Mou2 has already repaid the loan of 65000 yuan, From the date of divorce between the defendant and the third party, it can be seen that the two divorced on March 17, 2016. However, in this case, the two plaintiffs filed a civil loan lawsuit on March 18, 2016. Therefore, even if the third party’s repayment claimed by the two plaintiffs exists, it cannot be ruled out that the loan repaid by the third party is jointly owned by both parties
The possibility of repayment. In summary, the loan of 65000 yuan claimed by the two plaintiffs in this case should be borne by the defendant Pi
XXX and the third party Wu jointly repay.

Lawyer Expert review
The focus of the dispute in this case is the proportion of debt that the defendant should bear. In most debt cases,
Each debtor should repay the debt according to their own share. If it is not clear which share they should bear, they should share equally. In this case, the debt involved was borrowed by Pi and a third party named Wu for the purpose of their family’s common life, and should be paid off as a joint debt between the two parties. As both parties cannot clearly distinguish their respective shares, they should share the debt equally. Afterwards, although the plaintiff claimed that the third party Wu had paid off half of the debt, it was paid off with the joint property of the couple, and the debt that the defendant Pi should bear should also be reduced. The judge’s ruling that Pi and the third party Wu should jointly bear the remaining debt is worthy of approval.