离婚案件中房产性质的法律认定和具体分割应当结合各房产诞生的历史背景、政策制定初衷和功能导向，着重考察其在产权性质上的特殊性。成本价房、标准价房、经适房和限价房区别于一般商品房的特殊性主要体现在其政策福利和社会保障功能之上，在对房产性质进行法律认定时，不能简单按照一般商品房的裁判逻辑而仅以购房合同签订情况、产权证书取得时间以及出资来源作为判断权属的决定性依据，而是要加强对购房主体资格限制、工龄与职级折扣对象、福利面向主体等政策层面的审查来综合判断相关房产的实质对价来源，进而就其究竟属于夫妻共同财产还是夫妻一方个人财产进行法律认定。在分割夫妻共有房产时，应以照顾子女、女方和无过错方为基本原则，在操作层面对房屋的最终归属和价值认定进行裁决时，应明确竞价规则的适用应以夫妻双方均为同意为前提，在采取竞价、评估后补偿以及拍卖、变卖程序之基础上仍应重视照顾原则的适用。标准价房在产权构造上采附条件共有的模式，但单位与通常作为购房人的职工配偶方于相关标准价房之上按比例享有产权的法律关系并不足以证成离婚诉讼中搁置所有权争议而仅对使用权进行判定的合理性。对购房人所属部分产权在夫妻之间的分割并不直接损害单位的利益，对单位基于标准价房而与职工形成的内部关系的维护或可通过程序上对单位意见进行征求以及实体上允许单位退出共有关系来实现。经适房和限价房在离婚案件中的分割应区分限售期内和限售期外作出不同的处理：限售期内的分割由获得产权房以市场评估价为计算基准给予另一方补偿或者在双方共同申请政府回购的情况下对返还的原购买价款及利息进行分割；限售期外的分割应以市场价为基准计算补偿价款，与此同时，应注意在实体和程序上平衡对政府优先购买权的保护。

The determination of property ownership and share in marital relationships should be based on the historical background of the birth of each property, the original intention of policy formulation, and functional orientation, with a focus on examining its particularity in the nature of property rights. The distinctions between cost priced housing, standard priced housing, affordable housing, and limited price housing from general commercial housing are mainly reflected in their policy benefits and social security functions. When determining the nature of real estate, it is not simply based on the judgment logic of general commercial housing, but only on the signing of the purchase contract, the acquisition time of the property certificate, and the source of capital contribution as the basis for determining ownership. Instead, it is necessary to strengthen the qualification restrictions on the purchase subject, the objects of seniority discounts Through policy level reviews such as welfare oriented entities, it is necessary to comprehensively determine the substantive source of consideration for the relevant property, and then determine whether it belongs to the joint property of the couple or the personal property of one party. When dividing the jointly owned property between husband and wife, the basic principle should be to take care of the children, the wife, and the innocent party. When making judgments on the final ownership and value determination of the property at the operational level, it should be clear that the application of bidding rules should be based on the consent of both parties. The application of the principle of care should still be valued on the basis of bidding, evaluation, compensation, auction, and sale. The standard price housing adopts a common model with attached conditions in terms of property rights structure, but the legal relationship between the unit and the employee spouse who is usually the purchaser who enjoys property rights proportionally above the relevant standard price housing is not sufficient to prove the rationality of setting aside ownership disputes and only determining the right to use in divorce litigation. The division of part of the property rights owned by the buyer between the couple does not directly harm the interests of the unit. The maintenance of the internal relationship between the unit and employees based on standard price housing can be achieved through procedural solicitation of opinions from the unit and physical permission for the unit to withdraw from the joint ownership relationship. The division of affordable housing and limited price housing in divorce cases should be distinguished between within and outside the restricted sales period and treated differently: the division within the restricted sales period should be compensated by the other party based on the market evaluation price of the property rights housing obtained, or the original purchase price and interest returned should be divided in the case of both parties jointly applying for government repurchase; For the division beyond the restricted sale period, the compensation price should be calculated based on the market value. At the same time, attention should be paid to balancing the protection of the government‘s preemptive right in entity and procedure.