Some netizens think that this is not sentient beings and righteousness? Two people can't be together. In order to provide good living conditions for their wives and daughters, isn't it affectionate and righteous to let them live in these houses? If a man cheats, it is a man with conscience that he can do so, not to mention there is no evidence of cheating.
Some netizens think that this person must have a reason. Even if the house is given to his wife and daughter, it should be a way to avoid debt. When two people divorce, their property will not be treated as creditor's rights, so that the purpose of avoiding debts can be achieved.
This matter should have a legal premise, that is, if he does this before the debt dispute occurs, it is affectionate and righteous; If it is post-debt, then this is debt avoidance. In life, debt disputes between companies may have similar problems. This person's practice is generally debt avoidance.
After hearing the case, the court held that this happened after the company had a debt dispute. Therefore, the court ruled that the divorce contract was invalid and asked the man to continue to pay his debts. I wonder what men will think when they hear it.
This incident shows that in the usual work, we should work down-to-earth and run the company well. Never avoid some problems in this way. Nothing is difficult in the world, as long as you are willing to escape. This statement is wrong. The same is true in life. When you encounter difficulties, you must solve them. Don't think about procrastination. Finally, you must solve the problem. This is what we have to face.
This man's practice is not worth advocating, nor is it what netizens think is affectionate and righteous, but escape. In the end, you have to bear the corresponding consequences. What do you think of men's practices?