戀愛期間的日常消費、表情達意的轉賬，是否屬于彩禮？

為進一步統一涉彩禮糾紛案件裁判標準，1月9日，最高人民法院發布第三批人民法院涉彩禮糾紛典型案例。在一起婚約財產糾紛案中，一方請求返還婚前同居期間的日常消費性支出，人民法院不予支持。

The Supreme People's Court (SPC) issued its third set of guiding cases concerning betrothal gift disputes on Friday, aiming to unify judgment standards across courts. In one case regarding property disputes during an engagement period, a claim for the return of daily living expenses incurred before marriage was rejected.

betrothal /b??tro?e(?)l/ n. 訂婚；婚約

案情顯示，2022年下半年，劉某（男）與張某在網上相識并戀愛。2023年3月，張某到劉某家與劉某及其兒子共同生活。2023年5月，雙方舉辦婚禮。2023年10月，雙方分手。期間，劉某向張某多次轉賬共計31500元，其中金額為520元的轉賬有五筆共計2600元；張某亦通過微信向劉某轉賬4500元。劉某、張某相互轉賬時均未備注用途。劉某認可張某在共同生活期間有購買床上用品及為劉某購買衣物、充值話費等支出。劉某以上述款項系彩禮性質為由，起訴請求張某返還全部轉賬款。

審理法院認為，雙方雖未辦理結婚登記，但按照習俗辦理了結婚儀式，結合雙方互有轉賬的情況、劉某的特殊轉賬金額、張某為家庭的開支、雙方的共同生活時間等，在雙方同居生活期間，并非劉某單方面為共同生活付出，應認定劉某的轉賬系用于家庭共同生活開銷，并不具有彩禮性質，故判決駁回劉某的訴訟請求。

The case involved Liu (male) and Zhang (female), who met online in the second half of 2022 and later began a relationship. In March 2023, Zhang moved in with Liu and his son. The couple held a wedding ceremony in May 2023 but separated in October of the same year. During their cohabitation, Liu transferred a total of 31,500 yuan to Zhang, including five transfers of 520 yuan each, which amounted to 2,600 yuan. Zhang also transferred 4,500 yuan to Liu via WeChat. None of the transfers included notes specifying their purpose. Liu acknowledged that Zhang had purchased bedding, bought clothes for him, and topped up his phone balance during their time together. Liu later sued Zhang, claiming all transferred funds were betrothal gifts and should be returned.

The court held that although the couple had not registered their marriage, they had conducted a wedding ceremony according to custom. Considering the mutual transfers, the symbolic amounts sent by Liu, Zhang's household expenses, and the duration of cohabitation, the transfers were deemed to cover daily living costs rather than constitute betrothal gifts. The court therefore dismissed Liu's claim.

澎湃新聞注意到，《最高人民法院關于審理涉彩禮糾紛案件適用法律若干問題的規定》（以下簡稱涉彩禮糾紛司法解釋）第三條第二款規定：“下列情形給付的財物，不屬于彩禮：（一）一方在節日、生日等有特殊紀念意義時點給付的價值不大的禮物、禮金；（二）一方為表達或者增進感情的日常消費性支出；（三）其他價值不大的財物。”

“雖然消費性支出與彩禮均有表達、促進感情的目的，但二者仍存在一定差別。戀愛交友期間的消費性支出，屬于情誼行為范疇，不宜由司法予以調整。”最高法表示，劉某在同居關系結束后，要求張某全部返還的款項系日常多次轉賬形成，其中包含特殊含義的轉賬，且雙方互有轉賬，張某亦有生活消費和為劉某購買衣物、充值話費等支出，人民法院認定轉賬系用于雙方共同生活開銷，對劉某要求張某返還轉賬的主張不予支持。

The SPC referred to its judicial interpretation on betrothal gift disputes, which states that the following types of payments are not considered betrothal gifts: Gifts or small sums of money given on special occasions such as holidays or birthdays; Daily consumption expenses aimed at expressing or enhancing affection; Other low-value properties.

"Although both consumption expenses and betrothal gifts may serve to express or strengthen emotional bonds, there is a clear distinction between them," the SPC explained. "Daily spending during a relationship falls within the realm of social courtesy and should generally not be subject to judicial intervention."

In this case, the court noted that Liu's requests for reimbursement involved repeated daily transfers, including symbolically meaningful amounts, and that both parties had transferred money to each other. Since Zhang had also spent on living expenses and purchases for Liu, the funds were reasonably considered joint living costs.

“日常消費性支出以及表情達意的小額轉賬不屬于彩禮范圍。”最高法在闡述案例典型意義時強調，在具體案件中，人民法院應當結合當地風俗習慣和日常生活經驗，厘清雙方間的往來款項系為表達、增進感情的消費性支出還是彩禮，從而適用相關規則予以處理。

來源：最高人民法院 澎湃新聞

跟著China Daily

精讀英語新聞

“無痛”學英語，每天20分鐘就夠！