【摘要】：擔(dān)保物權(quán)系以確保債務(wù)的清償為目的,而于債務(wù)人或第三人所有物或權(quán)利上設(shè)立。各種擔(dān)保方式中,除債務(wù)人自己提供的擔(dān)保物外,否則擔(dān)保人的法律地位一律平等,無(wú)何者先行實(shí)行的問(wèn)題。擔(dān)保人與債務(wù)人的關(guān)系不可一概而論,其是否承擔(dān)連帶關(guān)系,應(yīng)視其有無(wú)明確約定或法律的規(guī)定而定。通過(guò)對(duì)共同擔(dān)保規(guī)則的釋義與理論檢討,結(jié)合司法實(shí)踐的視角而言,共同擔(dān)保人之間的責(zé)任承擔(dān)規(guī)則可概括如下:擔(dān)保人之間有約定依約定;無(wú)約定情形下,債務(wù)人提供的物保理應(yīng)得到優(yōu)先實(shí)現(xiàn),以體現(xiàn)其為最終的義務(wù)承擔(dān)者;如果擔(dān)保均由第三人提供,則承擔(dān)擔(dān)保責(zé)任的擔(dān)保人,可以自由選擇任一擔(dān)保責(zé)任人進(jìn)行追償,且追償并無(wú)順位的限制;追償份額有約定依其約定,無(wú)約定,共同保證按照人數(shù)平均分配,混合共同擔(dān)保則依擔(dān)保物價(jià)值與保證人所負(fù)之責(zé)任比例確定;第三人類(lèi)型的擔(dān)保人并存時(shí),債權(quán)人放棄部分擔(dān)保權(quán)將導(dǎo)致其余擔(dān)保人在相應(yīng)的責(zé)任范圍內(nèi)免責(zé),因第三人類(lèi)型的擔(dān)保人擔(dān)保的同一債務(wù)屬于同一層次之債,得成立連帶債務(wù)。《擔(dān)保法》第12條及相關(guān)司法解釋中,除非當(dāng)事人之間存在明確約定,否則依法推定共同保證人對(duì)債務(wù)承擔(dān)連帶清償義務(wù)。此外,肯定保證人之間享有追償權(quán)并不違背《物權(quán)法》第176條的立法精神。
[Abstract]:A security interest is established in the property or rights of the debtor or a third party for the purpose of securing the satisfaction of the obligation. The legal status of the guarantor is equal except the security provided by the debtor, and there is no question of which should be put into practice first. The relationship between guarantor and debtor can not be generalized, whether the guarantor undertakes the joint relationship or not depends on whether there is an explicit agreement or a legal provision. By reviewing the interpretation and theory of the rules of co-guarantee, and combining the perspective of judicial practice, the rules of liability bearing between co-guarantors can be summarized as follows: there is an agreement between guarantors according to the agreement; in the case of no agreement, The reassurance provided by the debtor should be given priority in order to reflect that it is the ultimate duty bearers; if all the guarantees are provided by a third party, the guarantor who bears the responsibility for the security may freely choose any person responsible for the security to pursue the claim, And there is no restriction of the order of recovery; the share of recovery is agreed according to its agreement, without agreement, the joint guarantee is distributed equally according to the number of persons, and the mixed co-guarantee is determined by the value of the guaranty and the proportion of the guarantor's liability. When the third party type of guarantor coexists, the creditor waiving part of the security right will lead to the exemption of the remaining guarantor within the corresponding scope of liability, because the same obligation guaranteed by the third party type guarantor belongs to the same level of debt, Article 12 of the Guaranty Law and the relevant judicial interpretation, unless there is a clear agreement between the parties, the joint guarantor is presumed to be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the debt according to law. In addition, affirmation of the right of recourse between guarantors does not violate the legislative spirit of Article 176 of the property Law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：江西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 凌捷;;混合共同擔(dān)保若干爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題研究[J];政治與法律;2016年06期

2 高圣平;;擔(dān)保物權(quán)司法解釋起草中的重大爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2016年01期

3 黃忠;;混合共同擔(dān)保之內(nèi)部追償權(quán)的證立及其展開(kāi) 《物權(quán)法》第176條的解釋論[J];中外法學(xué);2015年04期

4 李紅建;雷新勇;;人保與第三人物保的相互追償及擔(dān)保物權(quán)未設(shè)立的責(zé)任問(wèn)題探討[J];法律適用;2014年08期

5 程嘯;;混合共同擔(dān)保中擔(dān)保人的追償權(quán)與代位權(quán)——對(duì)《物權(quán)法》第176條的理解[J];政治與法律;2014年06期

6 曾榮鑫;;人的擔(dān)保和物的擔(dān)保并存的處理規(guī)則的新探討[J];河北法學(xué);2014年01期

7 江海;石冠彬;;論共同擔(dān)保人內(nèi)部追償規(guī)則的構(gòu)建——兼評(píng)《物權(quán)法》第176條[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2013年06期

8 江海;石冠彬;;論混合共同擔(dān)�！嬖u(píng)《物權(quán)法》第176條[J];海南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年03期

9 張定軍;;論不真正連帶債務(wù)[J];中外法學(xué);2010年04期

10 黃U，

本文編號(hào)：2252772