担保人内部追偿权之向死而生一个法律和经济分析

The Destiny of Right of Contribution between Providers of Security A Legal and Economic Analysis

担保人内部追偿权之有无,是私法上一道经典价值判断难题,长久以来聚讼纷纭。在合同约定阙如时,法律为何应当肯定或否定担保人之内部追偿权?该问题并非混合担保独有,而见于所有担保,实为任意性规定之设计问题。基于对最大多数担保人意愿之分析,以肯定说为任意性规定,不仅契合意思自治即自由价值,亦符合效率,且无关乎公平。在解释论上,以上价值判断可融入对《民法典》第700条之历史或目的解释,与其他解释一道证成保证人之内部追偿权,并类推适用于混合担保等其他场合。

It is a classic problem of value judgment in private law and has been long debated,whether there should be a right of contribution between providers of security.The underlying key question is why the law should recognize or deny the contribution right between security providers in the absence of any agreement.Different from the existing literature,this paper argues,primarily based on an analysis of the potential intention of most security providers,that it is in accordance with the value of freedom(private autonomy)and efficiency,and irrelevant to the value of fairness,to set up the contribution right as the default rule.These value judgements can be integrated into a historical or teleological interpretation of Article 700 of the Civil Code,which supports the contribution right between co-sureties de lege latatogether with other methods of interpretation of Article 700.Similar contribution right between other types of security providers can also be established per analogy.