根據法院查明的事實，涉案中國男子為44歲，長期從事健身活動，與妻子依法登記結婚並維持婚姻關係多年。在婚姻存續期間，男子於其經常出入的健身房結識一名24歲的女性前台人員，兩人隨後發展為不正當男女關係，並維持近兩年時間。交往期間，男子為討對方歡心，陸續向該名女子贈送多個奢侈品包款，並多次以轉帳、現金等方式給付金錢，累計金額超過人民幣35萬元。

這些資金與物品，均來自男子在婚姻關係存續期間的收入或夫妻共同財產。期間，男子刻意對妻子隱瞞該段關係及相關財產支出，直到妻子偶然發現其手機聊天記錄、轉帳憑證與奢侈品購買紀錄後，才揭發這段婚外情。妻子在確認金額與事實後，選擇透過法律途徑維權，並未直接對丈夫主張返還，而是以侵害夫妻共同財產權為由，將健身房前台女子告上法院，要求返還全部受贈財物及相應利息。

案件進入審理後，爭議焦點主要集中在兩個層面：其一，該男子的贈與行為是否有效；其二，第三人即受贈女子是否有返還義務。前台女子辯稱，相關財物屬於男女之間的自願贈與，部分為戀愛期間的正常消費與饋贈，且其並未強迫或詐騙，不應承擔返還責任。

法院在一審判決中並未採信該說法。法院認為，該男子在婚姻關係存續期間，未經配偶同意，擅自將夫妻共同財產大額贈與婚外第三人，且贈與目的明顯違背公序良俗，破壞婚姻制度與家庭穩定，依法應認定為無效的民事法律行為。換言之，這類贈與並非單純的情感饋贈，而是對夫妻共同財產權的侵害。

法院進一步指出，受贈人明知或應知對方已有配偶，仍長期接受高額財物，主觀上存在過錯，客觀上取得了不當利益，依法構成不當得利，應當返還。最終，一審判決支持原告妻子的訴求，裁定該健身房前台女子須返還折合人民幣35萬餘元的財物及相應利息。

這起判決在法律層面延續近年中國司法實務中的一致立場，即「婚內出軌一方，無權擅自處分夫妻共同財產以取悅第三人」，不論形式是現金轉帳、購買奢侈品，或其他高價饋贈，只要金額明顯超出日常交往範圍，且目的與婚外情相關，均可能被認定無效。

從社會層面來看，該案也反映出部分婚外關係中，金錢與物質交換的高度現實性，以及婚姻風險在財產層面的外溢效應。法院的判決不僅是對受害配偶財產權的保護，也釋放出明確訊號，即法律不會為破壞他人婚姻、以不正當關係獲取利益的行為背書。

整體而言，這起案件再次強調，婚姻存續期間的財產，並非個人可以隨意支配的「私產」，任何以違反婚姻忠誠義務為前提的大額贈與行為，都可能在法律上被否定，並面臨返還甚至進一步民事責任的後果。

This case is a civil dispute involving marital relations, the disposition of marital property, and an extramarital affair. Due to the large sum of money involved and the clear factual background, it has once again sparked public debate in China over whether gifts made during an affair are legally valid.

According to the facts established by the court, the man involved was 44 years old, an avid fitness enthusiast, and legally married, with the marriage remaining valid throughout the relevant period. During the marriage, he became acquainted with a 24-year-old female front desk employee at the gym he frequently attended. The two subsequently developed an improper extramarital relationship that lasted nearly two years. Over the course of this relationship, the man, in an effort to please the woman, purchased multiple luxury handbags for her and transferred money to her on numerous occasions, both in cash and by bank transfer. The total value of the gifts and payments exceeded 350,000 yuan.

All of the funds and luxury goods were derived from the man’s income or assets acquired during the marriage and therefore constituted marital joint property. The man deliberately concealed both the affair and the related financial transfers from his wife. The situation only came to light when the wife discovered chat records, transfer receipts, and luxury purchase records on his phone. After verifying the facts and the amounts involved, the wife chose to seek legal recourse. Instead of suing her husband directly, she filed a lawsuit against the gym front desk employee, arguing that the transfers infringed upon her rights to marital joint property and demanding the return of all gifted assets along with accrued interest.

During the trial, the key disputes centered on whether the man’s gifts were legally valid and whether the third party who received them was obligated to return them. The defendant argued that the assets were voluntarily given in the context of a romantic relationship, that some of the expenditures were normal gifts exchanged during dating, and that she had neither coerced nor defrauded the man, and therefore should not be required to return the money or goods.

The court rejected this argument in its first-instance judgment. It held that during the subsistence of the marriage, the man had, without his spouse’s consent, transferred a substantial amount of marital joint property to a third party involved in an extramarital relationship. The purpose of these gifts clearly violated public order and good morals and undermined the institution of marriage and family stability. As such, the court ruled that the gifts constituted invalid civil acts under the law. In other words, these transfers were not ordinary expressions of affection, but an unlawful disposal of marital joint property.

The court further noted that the recipient knew or should have known that the man was married, yet still accepted large sums of money and valuable gifts over an extended period. This demonstrated subjective fault, and objectively resulted in unjust enrichment. Accordingly, she was legally required to return the improperly obtained property.

Based on these findings, the court upheld the wife’s claims and ordered the defendant to return property and funds totaling more than 350,000 yuan, along with the corresponding interest.

From a legal perspective, the judgment is consistent with the prevailing approach in recent Chinese judicial practice, which holds that a spouse engaged in an affair has no right to dispose of marital joint property to benefit a third party. Whether such transfers take the form of cash payments, luxury goods, or other high-value gifts, they are likely to be deemed invalid if the amounts clearly exceed normal social interactions and are linked to an extramarital relationship.

From a broader social standpoint, the case also highlights the transactional nature of some extramarital relationships and the way marital risks can spill over into the realm of property rights. The court’s ruling not only protects the legitimate property interests of the innocent spouse, but also sends a clear message that the law will not endorse conduct that undermines marriage or allows third parties to profit from improper relationships.

Overall, the case underscores that property acquired during a marriage is not an individual’s private asset to be freely disposed of. Any substantial gifts made on the basis of a breach of marital fidelity may be invalidated by the courts and give rise to obligations of restitution and further civil liability.