本文選題：保證責任 + 一般保證　； 參考：《鄭州大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：保證制度自其公布以來,對資金融通起著越來越重要的作用。隨著市場對保證的需求愈加迫切,保證的相關法律的要求也越來越細致,但是我國對保證制度的規(guī)定,內(nèi)容依然比較抽象。譬如本文試圖探討的保證人在訴訟中的地位,我國《民事訴訟法司法解釋》對此僅有一條規(guī)定。但是在司法實踐中,并不是所有的債權(quán)人都嚴格按照《民事訴訟法司法解釋》的規(guī)定去執(zhí)行,例如,在連帶保證中債權(quán)人享有選擇權(quán)。因此,本文試圖對保證人在訴訟中的地位問題進行探討。保證人承擔保證責任以保證關系成立為基礎。按照保證合同中保證方式的不同,可以將保證區(qū)分為一般保證和連帶責任保證,主要區(qū)別在于保證人享有的權(quán)利不同。按照我國現(xiàn)行《擔保法》及其司法解釋,一般保證人享有其專有權(quán)利——先訴抗辯權(quán),因此,債權(quán)人在沒有事先要求債務人履行其清償債務的義務并確定債務人“不能”清償主債務之前,是不能請求一般保證人直接承擔保證責任的。按照現(xiàn)行法律的規(guī)定,債權(quán)人不能只列一般保證人為被告。而在連帶責任保證中,保證人不享有先訴抗辯權(quán),其承擔保證責任并不強調(diào)主債務人“不能”履行,只要主債務人不履行債務,債權(quán)人就可以請求其承擔保證責任。因此,依照現(xiàn)行法律,在發(fā)生訴訟時,由于保證人和主債務人在清償中的地位相同,債權(quán)人既能夠單獨去起訴保證人,也能單獨起訴債務人,也能一同起訴。但是,現(xiàn)行法律的規(guī)定與我國《民事訴訟法》的立法精神是相悖的,根據(jù)我國民事訴訟法的精神,只有在確定了當事人的地位之后才能據(jù)此劃分其法律責任。另外值得探討的是,如果連帶保證同時又是共同保證,債權(quán)人在起訴時,僅僅起訴了其中的部分保證人,但是執(zhí)行之后主債務依然不能得到完全的清償,此時,債權(quán)人是否可以再起訴其他的保證人。根據(jù)《擔保法》相關規(guī)定,債權(quán)人對自己的訴權(quán)享有選擇的權(quán)利,這表示債權(quán)人可以選擇行使權(quán)利的對象。法律賦予債權(quán)人選擇的權(quán)利是一種“選擇權(quán)”而不是放棄行使權(quán)利,其選擇向其中一個或多個保證人不代表放棄對另外的保證人,除非債權(quán)人本人放棄了對其他擔保人的權(quán)利。如果債權(quán)人既沒有對其他擔保人主張其權(quán)利,也未曾對其表示放棄權(quán)利,根據(jù)民法的立法宗旨,沒有明確表示對權(quán)利的放棄則意味著從來沒有放棄權(quán)利,則該權(quán)利會保留。是以,沒有向其中某個或某些保證人主張其債權(quán)并不意味著放棄了主張的權(quán)利,債權(quán)人對這些保證人仍然可以主張權(quán)利。
[Abstract]:Since its publication, the guarantee system has played a more and more important role in financing. With the increasing demand of the market for the guarantee, the requirements of the relevant laws of the guarantee are becoming more and more detailed, but the provisions of the guarantee system in our country, the content is still relatively abstract. For example, there is only one provision in the Judicial interpretation of Civil procedure Law. However, in judicial practice, not all creditors are strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Civil procedure Law of Judicial interpretation, for example, in the joint guarantee creditor has the right of option. Therefore, this paper attempts to discuss the status of guarantor in litigation. The guarantor assumes the responsibility of surety on the basis of the establishment of the surety relationship. According to the different ways of guaranty in the guarantee contract, the guarantee can be divided into general warranty and joint and several liability guarantee, the main difference is that the guarantor has different rights. According to the current guarantee Law of our country and its judicial interpretation, the general surety enjoys its exclusive right-the right to plead in advance. Creditors cannot ask the general surety to assume direct liability for security without first requiring the debtor to discharge its obligation to discharge its debts and to determine that the debtor is "unable" to discharge the principal obligation. Under the current law, creditors cannot name only the general surety as the defendant. But in the joint and several liability guarantee, the surety does not have the right to plead first, its undertaking surety does not emphasize the main debtor "cannot" perform, as long as the main debtor does not perform the debt, the creditor may request it to undertake the surety responsibility. Thus, under the current law, since the guarantor and the principal debtor are in the same position in the settlement when an action takes place, the creditor can either sue the guarantor alone, the debtor separately, or the debtor together. However, the provisions of the current law are contrary to the legislative spirit of the Civil procedure Law of our country. According to the spirit of the Civil procedure Law of our country, only after confirming the status of the parties can they be divided into legal responsibilities. It is also worth exploring that if the joint and several guarantee is also a joint guarantee, the creditor sued only some of the guarantors when suing, but the main debt still cannot be fully repaid after execution. At this time, Whether creditors can sue other guarantors. According to the relevant provisions of the Guaranty Law, the creditor has the right of choice to his right of action, which means that the creditor can choose the object to exercise the right. The right given by law to the creditor to choose is a "right of option" rather than a waiver of the exercise of the right, and its choice to one or more of the guarantors does not represent a waiver of the right to another surety unless the creditor himself waives his rights against the other guarantor. If the creditor neither claims its rights against other guarantors nor waives their rights, according to the legislative purpose of the civil law, the failure to express expressly the waiver of the right means that the right has never been waived, then the right will be retained. Therefore, the failure to claim a claim against one or some of the guarantors does not mean that the claim is waived, and the creditor can still claim the right against the surety.
【學位授予單位】：鄭州大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923

【相似文獻】

相關碩士學位論文 前2條

1 潘三霞;論債權(quán)債務關系中保證人的訴訟地位[D];鄭州大學;2017年

2 劉欣慰;職業(yè)自由及其意義[D];鄭州大學;2017年

，

本文編號：1915990