网络直播打赏中的夫妻共同财产认定与救济——以《民法典婚姻家庭编解释(二)》第6条为中心

Determination and Remedies of Marital Joint Property in Online Live-Stream Gifting—Focusing on Article 6 of the Judicial Interpretation (II) on the Book of Marriage and Family of the Civil Code

摘要: 网络直播打赏纠纷进入婚姻家庭案件后，争议焦点并不只在于主播或平台是否应当返还，更在于打赏资金在婚姻法上如何定性，以及何种程度的打赏足以触发共同财产保护。《民法典婚姻家庭编解释(二)》第6条将一方在网络直播平台以夫妻共同财产进行大额打赏的行为纳入“挥霍”范畴，并与《民法典》第1066条、第1092条相衔接，标志着此类案件的规范重心从一般合同法、赠与法的返还争论，转向夫妻共同财产内部保护秩序的建构。对该条规定的理解，应当以婚姻内部财产归属与外部财产效力相区分为方法前提。婚姻关系存续期间所得财产进入一方个人账户或者平台账户，不改变其在婚姻法上的共同财产属性，但账户控制状态、虚拟道具形态和平台交易结构，又决定了此种共同财产属性不能当然向主播、平台发生对世对抗效力。因此第6条中的“挥霍”认定，应当以家庭一般消费水平、共同财产规模、打赏频率与持续时间、是否隐瞒、是否明显侵占家庭必要支出等因素综合判断，而不能仅凭未征得配偶同意或单笔金额较大即认定。救济方面，婚内析产和离婚时少分、不分应当构成主路径。对主播、平台主张返还，只能在违法直播、公序良俗无效或者恶意串通等例外场景中成立，并且应严格限定其适用边界。事实上，第6条的真正意义在于为夫妻共同财产遭受直播打赏侵蚀时提供一条更明确的内部保护通道。

Abstract: After disputes arising from online live-streaming rewards enter marriage-and-family cases, the focal controversy lies not merely in whether anchors or platforms ought to make refunds, but further in the legal characterization of reward funds under marriage law and the threshold of rewards sufficient to trigger community-property protection. Article 6 of the Judicial Interpretation (II) to the Marriage and Family Book of the Civil Code classifies substantial rewards made by one spouse with marital community property on online live-streaming platforms as “squandering”. Linked with Articles 1066 and 1092 of the Civil Code, this provision signals a shift in the normative focus of such cases: away from refund-centered debates under general contract law and gift law, toward constructing an internal protection regime for marital community property. Interpretation of this Article shall be premised methodologically on distinguishing the internal ownership of marital property from its external legal effect. Property acquired during the subsistence of a marriage retains its nature as marital community property under marriage law even after it is transferred to the individual bank account or platform account of one spouse. Nevertheless, the mode of account control, the form of virtual gifts and the platform transaction structure dictate that such community-property status does not automatically produce erga omnes effect enforceable against anchors and platforms. Accordingly, the determination of “squandering” under Article 6 requires a comprehensive assessment of factors including the household’s ordinary consumption level, the scale of community property, the frequency and duration of rewards, whether the conduct was concealed, and whether rewards have significantly encroached upon essential household expenditures. A finding of squandering cannot rest solely on the absence of spousal consent or the large amount of a single reward. As for remedies, marital property partition during marriage and reduced or no-share allocation upon divorce shall serve as the primary avenues. Claims for refunds against anchors and platforms may only be sustained in exceptional scenarios such as illegal live-streaming, nullity for violation of public order and good morals, or malicious collusion, with their scope of application strictly confined. In effect, the true significance of Article 6 consists in offering a clearer internal-protection channel where marital community property is impaired by live-streaming rewards.