混合共同担保制度之所以能成为市场经济社会中一种重要的担保形式,是因为其能有效降低债权人的金融交易风险,也能为债权人提供多重保障。针对混合共同担保中担保人是否具有追偿权的问题一直以来都是理论界和实务界的重点和难点。《民法...混合共同担保制度之所以能成为市场经济社会中一种重要的担保形式,是因为其能有效降低债权人的金融交易风险,也能为债权人提供多重保障。针对混合共同担保中担保人是否具有追偿权的问题一直以来都是理论界和实务界的重点和难点。《民法典》出台后延续了《物权法》的规定,但也未对该问题作出明确的规定。尽管担保制度司法解释作出了允许在“担保人约定、合同共签、盖章或按指印”三种特殊情况下认可混合共同担保人之间的内部追偿权。但在其他情形下是否具有追偿权仍无定论。故本文从《民法典》的立法宗旨出发,分析担保制度、连带债务规则、不当得利制度等,肯定了混合共同担保人间内部追偿权的正当性。并针对可能存在的追偿条件较模糊、追偿顺序不明确等问题提出了可能的解决方案。The reason why the mixed joint guarantee system can become an important form of guarantee in a market economy society is that it can effectively reduce the financial transaction risks of creditors and provide multiple guarantees for creditors. However, the issue of whether the guarantor has the right of recourse in mixed joint guarantees has always been a focus and difficulty in both theoretical and practical circles. After the promulgation of the Civil Code, it continued the provisions of the Property Law, but did not make clear provisions on this issue. However, the judicial interpretation of the guarantee system allows for the recognition of internal recourse rights between mixed joint guarantors under three special circumstances: “guarantor agreement, contract co-signing, seal or fingerprint”. However, there is still no consensus on whether there is a right of recourse in other situations. Therefore, starting from the legislative purpose of the Civil Code, this article analyzes the guarantee system, joint and several debt rules, unjust enrichment system, etc., and affirms the legitimacy of the internal recourse rights between mixed joint guarantors. And proposed possible solutions to the problems of vague recovery conditions and unclear recovery orders that may exist.展开更多
文摘混合共同担保制度之所以能成为市场经济社会中一种重要的担保形式,是因为其能有效降低债权人的金融交易风险,也能为债权人提供多重保障。针对混合共同担保中担保人是否具有追偿权的问题一直以来都是理论界和实务界的重点和难点。《民法典》出台后延续了《物权法》的规定,但也未对该问题作出明确的规定。尽管担保制度司法解释作出了允许在“担保人约定、合同共签、盖章或按指印”三种特殊情况下认可混合共同担保人之间的内部追偿权。但在其他情形下是否具有追偿权仍无定论。故本文从《民法典》的立法宗旨出发,分析担保制度、连带债务规则、不当得利制度等,肯定了混合共同担保人间内部追偿权的正当性。并针对可能存在的追偿条件较模糊、追偿顺序不明确等问题提出了可能的解决方案。The reason why the mixed joint guarantee system can become an important form of guarantee in a market economy society is that it can effectively reduce the financial transaction risks of creditors and provide multiple guarantees for creditors. However, the issue of whether the guarantor has the right of recourse in mixed joint guarantees has always been a focus and difficulty in both theoretical and practical circles. After the promulgation of the Civil Code, it continued the provisions of the Property Law, but did not make clear provisions on this issue. However, the judicial interpretation of the guarantee system allows for the recognition of internal recourse rights between mixed joint guarantors under three special circumstances: “guarantor agreement, contract co-signing, seal or fingerprint”. However, there is still no consensus on whether there is a right of recourse in other situations. Therefore, starting from the legislative purpose of the Civil Code, this article analyzes the guarantee system, joint and several debt rules, unjust enrichment system, etc., and affirms the legitimacy of the internal recourse rights between mixed joint guarantors. And proposed possible solutions to the problems of vague recovery conditions and unclear recovery orders that may exist.
