离婚经济补偿实质化适用的程序突破与规则调适——以《婚姻家庭编解释（二）》第21条为中心

Procedural Breakthrough and Rule Adjustment for the Substantive Application of Divorce Economic Compensation—Centered on Article 21 of the Judicial Interpretation (II) of the Marriage and Family Section

摘要: 《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉婚姻家庭编的解释（二）》第21条确立了以“四要素”为核心的离婚经济补偿裁量标准，旨在破解既往司法实践中补偿数额畸低与说理阙如之困境。然基于新规实施后39份新近裁判文书的实证考察发现，新规呈现出“形式化援引”的适用悬置现象，说理虚置、补偿额度固化、契约排他优先等问题依旧严峻。其症结并非实体规范之缺漏，而在于家务劳动之无形性与传统诉讼“谁主张谁举证”原则之错位所生的程序性壁垒。为化解此僵局，须实现从对抗制诉讼向协同查明的程序路径转向。以检察机关调查核实与法院协同社区联动调解为参照，藉由职权探知与多元解纷机制前置，方能实质性破解举证困局。进而在规则调适层面，应细化“四要素”之论证要求，缓和证明责任，并将协同纠纷解决机制制度化，从而衔接实体公平与程序正义，实现离婚经济补偿制度的实质化适用。

Abstract: Article 21 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China establishes the discretionary standard for divorce economic compensation centered on the “four elements”, aiming to overcome the dilemmas of abnormally low compensation amounts and lack of reasoning in previous judicial practices. However, based on an empirical study of 39 recent judgments since the implementation of the new rule, it is found that the new rule exhibits a phenomenon of “formalized citation”, leading to a suspension in its application. Issues such as the hollowing-out of reasoning, rigid compensation amounts, and the exclusive priority of contracts remain severe. The crux lies not in the omissions of substantive norms, but in the procedural barriers arising from the misalignment between the intangibility of housework and the traditional litigation principle of “whoever asserts must prove”. To resolve this deadlock, it is necessary to shift from adversarial litigation to a procedural path of collaborative fact-finding. Taking the procuratorial organ’s investigation and verification and the court’s collaborative mediation with communities as references, only through ex officio investigation and the prioritization of diversified dispute resolution mechanisms can the evidentiary dilemma be substantively resolved. Furthermore, at the level of rule adjustment, the argumentative requirements of the “four elements” should be refined, the burden of proof mitigated, and the collaborative dispute resolution mechanism institutionalized, thereby connecting substantive fairness with procedural justice and realizing the substantive application of the divorce economic compensation system.