《民法典》体系下共同担保人分担责任之实质理据

Substantive Rationale for Shared Liability Between Co-guarantors Under System of the Civil Code

共同担保人之一对债权人承担责任后,可以同其他共同担保人分担责任,这不仅在《民法典》上有充足依据,而且符合民法的内在价值。《民法典》中连带债务、连带责任人追偿权一般规范及代位规范适用于作为特别情形的共同担保。连带债务不以债务人有意思联络为要件,无意思联络不足以否定共同担保人之间的追偿。连带债务虽属对意思自治原则的偏离,但通过追偿权的配置,最终回归于意思自治原则的本旨,而不真正连带债务理论中的否定追偿说彻底背离了意思自治原则。肯定共同担保人内部分担是有效率的默认规则,有助于减少交易成本和案件处理成本。对照《民法典》中体现公平价值的诸多制度可见,肯定论与之更为相契。否定共同担保人内部分担的见解,不符《民法典》体系与价值,有违意思自治原则,既不公平又无效率,诱发诸多道德风险而无可行的防范对策。

One of the co-guarantors can share the liability among other co-guarantors. This not only has sufficient legal basis in the Civil Code, but also conforms to a variety of internal values of civil law. The general rules of the Civil Code on joint and several debts, the right of recourse between joint and several debtors and the provisions on subrogation are applicable to joint guarantor as special circumstances.The formation of joint and several debt does not take the intentional contact between the debtors as the element. Although the joint and several debt deviates from the principle of private autonomy, it finally returns to the principle of private autonomy through the allocation of the right of recourse. Affirming the internal sharing among co-guarantors is an efficient default rule, which helps to reduce transaction costs and case handling costs. Compared with many rules that embody the fair value in the Civil Code, it can be seen that the right to recourse is more consistent with it. Negating the internal sharing of co-guarantors is not in line with the system and value of the Civil Code, violates the principle of private autonomy,is unfair and inefficient, and induces many moral risks without feasible preventive countermeasures.