论约定保证期间——以《担保法》第25条和第26条为中心

On Contractual Guarantee Period

法定保证期间具有督促债权人及时行使权利的功能,而约定保证期间的功能则在于事先控制保证的风险。从法定保证期间和约定保证期间的不同功能出发,只有将法定保证期间界定为诉讼时效中断的限制期间,始能将其合理化,但应回归时效法中作统一。约定保证期间性质为保证合同所附的终期(也包含一部分解除条件),视债权人是否践行其不真正义务(因一般保证和连带责任保证而不同),而分别产生保证关系消灭或保证义务范围固定的效果。约定保证期间既非诉讼时效期间,亦非除斥期间,《担保法》第25条第2款以及第26条第2款均为有利于债权人之解释性规定。由于立法者对于先诉抗辩权与一般保证的诉讼时效起算之间的关系存在误解,有必要梳理先诉抗辩权、诉讼时效和约定保证期间三者的关系。一言以蔽之,对于名同实异的两类保证期间必须分别把握,方能消除我国保证担保法律实践中的混乱。

The function of the statutory guarantee period is to urge the creditor to exercise its fights in a timely manner, while the contractual guarantee period is intended to limit the risks arising out of the guaranty in advance.Starting from this analysis, with a view to rationalize its legislation and implementation, the statutory guarantee period should be defined as a limit to the interruption of prescription upon request, which should be integrated to the rules of prescription; the contractual period of guarantee should be interpreted as a kind of expiration term （including some conditio resolutiva） attached to the guaranty contract, the effect of which is to eliminate the guaranty relationship or determine the scope of the guaranty obligations depending on whether the creditor performs its Obliegenheit （the contents of which vary for normal guaranty and guaranty in solidum）. The contractual guarantee period is neither period of prescription nor period of exclusion in nature. Article 25.2 and article 26.2 of the PRC Security Law are both interpretative provisions which are beneficial to the creditor. Due to the misunderstanding of the legislators on the refutation against the previous suit and the commencement point of the prescription period for normal guaranty, the authors straightened the interrelationship among the refutation against the previous suit, the prescription and contractual guaranty period. To conclusion, two guarantee periods should be distinguished in order to eliminate the confusion in the implementing practice of PRC Security Law.