论债务加入与保证的识别

On the Identification of Debt Joining and Suretyship

债务加入与保证同作为担保债权实现手段存在着诸多差异,但这些差异通常难以在第三人为他人清偿债务之承诺中得以体现。这是因为,在识别第三人之承诺究竟属于债务加入还是保证时,意思表示解释通常仅能探明表意人是否愿受其为他人清偿债务之意思表示所拘束,而无法辨识出该表示意思的具体内容,故二者难以区分。除非当事人清晰地表明其愿作为新的债务人而加入到债务之中,抑或债务之履行有明确的顺位,否则无法直接区分债务加入与保证,此时应适用“存疑推定为保证”规则。但该推定规则的实质是解释规则,因此在推定为保证后,不应再适用保证方式存疑的推定规则将其推定为一般保证,而应通过解释方法将其解释为连带责任保证。

There are many differences between debt joining and suretyship as both means of securing the realization of a claim,but these differences are often difficult to reflect in the promise of a third party to satisfy the debt for another.This is because,in identifying whether a third party’s promise is a debt joining or a suretyship,the interpretation of meaning usually only reveals whether the representor is willing to be bound by his or her intention to satisfy the debt of another person,but not the specific content of that intention,making it difficult to distinguish between the two.Unless the party expresses his willingness to become a new debtor and join the debt,or there is a clear subordination of the payment of the debt,it is impossible to distinguish directly between the debt joining and suretyship,and the rule of“doubtful presumption of suretyship”should be applied in this case.However,the presumption rule is essentially a rule of interpretation,so after the presumption of suretyship,the presumption rule of doubtful suretyship should not be applied to presume it as a general suretyship,but should be interpreted as a joint and several guarantees by means of interpretation.