司法实践中单方处分夫妻共同财产法律效力认定存在争议。本文从房产出发，对此类问题下司法实践中已有的相关裁判案例在法律适用、效力认定方面进行探索与归纳，以期为夫妻单方处分共同财产的行为效力问题提供一些实证上的借鉴。 基于对“聚法案例”数据库近5年来以“单方处分夫妻共同房产行为认定”为争议核心点的148个案例的分析，发现对于夫妻共同房产的单方处分行为性质本身的认定，司法实践更倾向不予以明确认定，而对其合同效力进行认定。其中，大部分合同被认定为有效，《买卖合同解释》第三条作为法院佐证裁判逻辑合理的法源被援引频繁。此外，无论合同效力认定如何，在作出合同有效性认定的裁判过程，司法实践中不少法院都出现了不同程度裁判逻辑上的混乱。 在单方处分夫妻共同房产的“物权性共有”与“债权性共有”之争中，司法实践选择了“物权性共有”，认为夫妻共同房产自始具有物权法上共同性质，并在此逻辑下，基于与《买卖合同解释》第三条一致的逻辑，对当事人利益进行维护。对于与当事人权益联系最密切的合同的有效性认定，司法实践存在认定“合同效力待定”和“部分合同无效”的思路。其中，将无权处分行为认定为“合同有效”或“合同效力待定”的不同方式，亦与学界对于这一问题的分歧一致；而认为“部分合同无效”的处理方式则更多地流于形式，对于纠纷实质解决的可建设性差。 司法实践对单方处分共同房产被认定为是无权处分的案件中相对人是否适用善意取得的关注度并不高，且更倾向于认为相对人并不适用善意取得制度。此外，司法实践在夫妻单方处分共同房产性质的认定过程中，还存在着对无权代理与无权处分概念区分不敏感、适用混乱的问题等。在表见代理的认定方面，司法实践在判定代理其配偶进行房屋处分的处分方是否能够使得相对人认为其有代理权时，存在衡量标准较难把握的问题。从文章研究的案例来看，在包括对合同有效性、无权处分、有权处分、无权代理与表见代理性质分辨的过程中，司法实践都不同程度地体现出其在单方处分夫妻共同房产行为的认定上，对于法律基本理论与逻辑适用中存在的混乱。

In judicial practice, there are disputes over the legal validity of unilateral disposition of marital property. Starting from house property, this paper explores and summarizes the relevant judicial cases in judicial practice in terms of the application of law and the recognition of validity, aiming to provide some empirical reference for the validity recognition of unilateral disposition of marital property. Based on the analysis of 148 cases of past 5 years collected from "Jufa Cases" database with the "recognition of unilateral disposal of marital house property" as the core of the dispute, it is found that in judicial practice, the recognition of the nature of unilateral disposal of marital house property is not clearly identified, instead, the associated contract validity is identified. Among them, most of the contracts were found to be valid, and Article 3 of the Interpretation of Sales and Purchase Contracts was frequently cited as a useful legal source for the court to corroborate the logic of its judgment. In addition, no matter how the validity of the contract is determined, in the process of making a judgment on the validity of the contract, many courts have encountered different degrees of confusion in the logic of the law application in judicial practice. In the dispute over "joint ownership of real rights" and "joint ownership of obligatory rights" in the unilateral disposition of the marital house property, judicial practice chose "joint ownership of real rights", arguing that the property jointly owned by husband and wife has a nature of joint ownership in property law from the beginning. And based on the logic consistent with Article 3 of the Interpretation of Sales and Purchase Contracts, the judicial practice safeguard the interests of all the parties well. For the recognition of the validity of the contract which is closely related to the rights and interests of the parties, judicial practice has the idea of "the validity of the contract is pending" and "part of the contract is invalid". In fact, the different ways of identifying the act of disposition as "the contract is valid" or "the validity of the contract is pending" are also consistent with the disagreement in the academic circle on this issue; while the handling of "partial contract invalid" is more of a formality , the constructiveness of the substantive settlement of disputes is poor. Judicial practice has not paid much attention to whether the counterparty in the case of unilateral disposition of marital house property which is recognized as unauthorized is applicable to bona fide acquisition, and is more inclined to believe that the counterparty is not applicable. In addition, in judicial practice, in the process of recognizing the nature of unilateral disposition of marital house property, there are still problems such as insensitivity to the distinction between the concepts of unauthorized agency and unauthorized disposal, and confusion in their application. In terms of the identification of apparent agency, there is a problem in judicial practice that it is difficult to grasp the measurement standard when judging whether the dispose act of disposing party who claims he is on behalf of his spouse can make the counterparty believe that he has the power of attorney. In fact, in the process of distinguishing the validity of the contract, the disposition without the right, the disposition with the right, the agency without the authority and the apparent agency, it can be seen that in judicial practice, there are different degrees of confusion in the application of the legal logic of unilateral disposition of marital house property.