I. Case Review

In the course of market economic activities, the transfer of shares frequently occurs, and when the transfer of shares is intertwined with marital relationships, it is easy to trigger disputes concerning the ownership of shares, the effectiveness of the transfer, and the assumption of debts. This article takes a specific case as an example and discusses issues such as the effectiveness of the share transfer agreement, whether the shares belong to the joint property of the couple, and whether the relevant debts are joint debts of the couple. Through the sorting and analysis of the case, it deeply analyzes the legal rules applicable to disputes over the transfer of shares in the context of marital relationships.

The plaintiff Liu Wei and the defendant Su Wei were married and registered their marriage in October 2008, separated in 2011, and the plaintiff Liu Wei filed for divorce in the same year. Subsequently, the divorce was settled through mediation by the court, and it was clearly stated in the divorce lawsuit that the couple had no children and no joint debts, and personal claims and debts were to be borne by the individual.

Subsequently confirmed by the plaintiff, in relation to a certain trading company in Shenzhen, the company was established in 2009. The business registration shows that Su Mou holds 90% of the equity, with Su Mou's sister, Su Mouhua, holding 30% of the equity. The capital verification report indicates that the 450,000 yuan used by Su Mou for the contribution was transferred out of his personal account. On April 18, 2011, Su Mou and Su Mouhua signed a "Share Transfer Agreement," transferring his 90% equity in the company to Su Mouhua for 180,000 yuan, and the shareholder change registration was subsequently processed.

Plaintiff Liu Mou believes that Su Mou transferred the joint property of the couple without his consent and that Su Mouhua obtained it maliciously. Liu Mou claims that the share transfer agreement is invalid and has filed a lawsuit with the court.

II. Judgment Results

After the court's hearing, it was found that:

The court determined that the 90% equity of a certain trading company in Shenzhen, owned by Su Mou, is jointly owned property of the couple. Since the company's business registration and capital verification report both show that Su Mou invested funds from his own account, Su Mou did not submit other evidence to prove that the source of his investment was pre-marital earnings; the company was established during the marriage, and there was no evidence to prove that the investment was from Su Mou's pre-marital income and no property agreement between the two parties; Su Mou's transfer of equity occurred during a tense period in the marriage relationship, and there were contradictions in the statements regarding the payment of the transfer of equity between Su Mou and Su Mou Hua, with no evidence to support their claims.

The court ultimately ruled: The Share Transfer Agreement signed between Su Mou and Su Mou Hua is invalid.

III. Analysis of Daohua Law Firm Cases

Daohua Marriage and Family Law Firm's Tang Yunhong lawyer points out:

1. What are the criteria for recognizing the joint property attribute of equity as a marital asset?

During the existence of the marriage relationship, the equity acquired by either spouse should be recognized as joint marital property unless there is evidence to prove that it was contributed with pre-marital property. In this case, a certain trading company in Shenzhen was established during the marriage of the couple, and the party holding the equity failed to prove that it originated from pre-marital personal property. There is also no evidence to show that the couple had made special agreements regarding the property, so the equity held was recognized as joint marital property.

When one party claims that the equity contribution originates from pre-marital personal property, they must bear the strict burden of proof. This also reflects the law's protection of the legitimate rights and interests of both spouses, to prevent one party from arbitrarily attributing property acquired during the marriage to pre-marital personal property, thereby infringing upon the other party's property rights.

The property agreement between the spouses has priority in law. If both parties have a clear written agreement regarding property during the marriage and the agreement meets the valid requirements stipulated by law, the property shall be allocated in accordance with the agreement. In this case, there was no property agreement between Liu Wei and Su Mei, therefore, the statutory rules for the identification of joint property of the spouses apply.

2. How should the malicious transfer of property by one party after mediation divorce be regulated by law?

In this case, during the tense period of Su's marriage with Liu, Su transferred the shares he held, and the transferee was a relative, raising the suspicion of maliciously transferring the joint marital property. The court consequently ruled the share transfer agreement invalid. According to the relevant provisions of the Marriage Chapter of the Civil Code, the law holds a negative attitude towards the act of maliciously transferring joint marital property, aiming to protect the legitimate property rights of either spouse. Even if the marriage relationship is in crisis, if one party unilaterally disposes of significant joint marital property, thereby harming the interests of the other party, the other party has the right to request the invalidation of such disposition.

Four, Legal References

[The rest of the content is not provided in the original HTML snippet.]

1. Article 1062 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China provides: During the continuance of the marriage relationship, the following properties acquired by the husband and wife shall be considered as the joint property of the couple and owned by them jointly: (i) wages, bonuses, and remuneration for labor; (ii) profits from production, business, and investment; (iii) income from intellectual property rights; (iv) property inherited or gifted, except for the third item as provided in Article 1063, paragraph 3 of this Law; (v) other properties that should be jointly owned.

2. Article 1092 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China provides: If one party of the couple conceals, transfers, sells, destroys, or squanders the joint property of the couple, or forges joint debts of the couple to attempt to appropriate the other party's property, the court may order a lesser or no division of the joint property during the divorce. After the divorce, if the other party discovers the aforementioned acts, they may file a lawsuit with the People's Court to request a redivision of the joint property.