本文旨在讨论已经为审判程序认定的夫妻一方个人金钱债务，在进入执行程序后，执行的客观范围和如何执行共同财产这两个问题。更深一层次地，在民事强制执行立法的历史节点上，本文还希望结合“执行中在《民法典》第一千零六十六条规定的情形之外分割夫妻共同财产的正当性”和“执行中如何回应法定夫妻共同财产制下财产真实物权归属与形式外观不符的冲突”等问题，尝试对我国语境下强制执行规范的定位及其与《民法典》《民事诉讼法》之间的衔接进行厘清与分析。就责任财产范围而言，我国现行夫妻共同债务立法模式更接近于解决债务归属主体的夫妻共同责任模式，夫妻一方个人债务以举债方作为债务归属主体，以举债方全部财产即其个人特有财产和夫妻共同财产中的个人份额为责任财产范围。因此不难得出份额说的基本观点。对于其正当性，本文从以下两个方面做出论证：一方面，从规范上看，执行程序中以夫妻共同财产中的个人份额清偿夫妻个人债务与《民法典》第一千零六十六条对于婚姻关系存续期间夫妻共同财产的保护为“非实质性法律冲突”，二者有不同的调整范围和规范对象，相反在保护举债方配偶权益上有着共同的价值追求。另一方面，法理解释上，在个人债务的执行程序中分割夫妻共同财产属于民事实体法没有明确规范但又为实现执行依据上的权利义务关系所必须厘清的情形，在与实体法原则和精神相一致的前提下，强制执行规范存在直接创设部分相关规范的空间，发挥了逆向补充的功能。执行法院形式化地进行财产分割也可以大致落入我国语境下的执行裁决权范围。关于具体执行规则，我国现行立法和司法实践存在合意方案、诉讼方案、集中式执行方案三种进路。基于有限的实质审查说视角，本文主张在夫妻一方个人债务执行夫妻共同财产的执行程序中，应综合适用当事人合意方案和集中式执行方案两种进路，并贯彻协议分割优先原则。在充分尊重当事人意思自治的基础上，由执行程序集约式地进行被执行人份额确认和共有财产分割。以不动产执行为例，财产的查控应在权利外观主义原则之外，同时兼顾夫妻共同财产制标准，并贯彻形式审查原则；财产的换价以协议分割为原则，执行法院整体处置为补充，以最大化平衡债权实现与婚姻保护。

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the objective scope of enforcement and how to enforce the community property of one spouse‘s personal money debts that have been determined for the trial procedure. Further, at the historical node of civil enforcement legislation, by discussing the two issues of "the legitimacy of dividing the common property of husband and wife outside the circumstances stipulated in Article 1066 of the Civil Code" and "how to respond to the conflict of the inconsistency between the real property ownership and formal appearance of property under the joint property system in enforcement"，this paper attempts to clarify and analyze the positioning of compulsory enforcement Law in the Chinese context and its connection with the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Law.Regarding the liability property, the current legislative model of joint debt of the spouses in China is closer to the model of joint liability of the spouses that resolves the subject of debt attribution. Under this model, one of the spouses‘ personal debts takes the debtor as the subject of debt attribution, and the scope of the responsible property includes all of the debtor‘s property, i.e., his or her personal property and personal share of the couple‘s common property. Therefore, it is not difficult to arrive at the basic view of the share theory. For its legitimacy, this paper demonstrates from the following two aspects: On the one hand, from the normative point of view, the conflict between the enforcement method of settling individual debts of spouses with their individual shares of common property and the protection of common property of spouses during marriage in Article 106 of the Civil Code is a "non-substantive conflict of law". They have different scope of regulation and objects, but share the common value of protecting the rights and interests of the debtor‘s spouse. On the other hand, in terms of jurisprudential interpretation, the division of joint property of the spouses in the enforcement procedure of individual debts belongs to the situation that is not clearly regulated by civil substantive law but must be clarified in order to realize the debt-creditor relationship on the adjudication documents. On the premise of consistency with the principles and spirit of substantive law, there is room for the enforcement norms to directly create relevant norms and play the function of reverse supplementation. The formalized division of property by the enforcement court can also fall roughly within the scope of the power of enforcement ruling in the context of China.As for the specific enforcement rules, there are three approaches to the current legislation and judicial practice in China: consensual method, litigation method, and centralized enforcement method. Based on the perspective of limited substantive review, this paper advocates that in the execution procedure of settling individual debts with joint property of spouses, the consensual method and centralized execution method should be applied in an integrated manner. On the premise of fully respecting the autonomy of will of the parties, the enforcement court can carry out the confirmation of the property share of the executee and the division of the common property in an intensive manner. Taking the enforcement of real estate as an example, the investigation and control of matrimonial property should take into account the standard of common property system and implement the principle of formal examination in addition to the principle of appearance doctrine of rights; the exchange of property is based on the principle of agreed division, supplemented by the overall disposal by the enforcement court, so as to maximize the balance between the realization of claims and matrimonial protection.