earticle

영어

Article 176 of the Property Law stipulates the legal relationship of the coexistence of suretyship and real security, which called mixed co-guarantee. Compared with other single forms of guarantee, mixed co-guarantee has stronger guarantee of creditor's rights and it'ｓ more complicated. This paper discusses whether the regulation is reasonable and whether it should have the right of subrogation and right of recourse. From the perspective of the development process of mixed co-guarantee in China, the autonomy of will is in line with the basic principles of civil law and also the logical relationship of guarantee system. The implementation order of the mixed guarantee system shall comply with the following agreement. Where there No agreement, The security of the things guaranteed by the debtor shall have priority. Except security of the debtor's property, creditors may choose the security of the thing or the security of the person. From the perspective of legislation “Where there No agreement, The security of the things guaranteed by the debtor shall have priority” is in line with the original intention of the legislator. At the same time, when security of the debtor’s property is exists, it avoids t he i nj ustice t o t he t hird p arty a s g uarantor. “ Except s ecurity o f t he d ebtor’s property, creditors may choose the security of the thing or the security of the person.” is Denied the priority of real right enforcement, It is also the recognition of the equality of human status guaranteed by the Property Law. However, this paper has some questions about the rationality of the absolute priority of debtor’s guarantee. As for the issue of the guarantor's right of recourse, this paper affirms that the guarantor can exercise the right of recourse according to a certain proportion from the theory, system explanation and comparative law. Whether the guarantor should have the subrogation right or not, The subrogation right of guarantor should be recognized by law from its relationship with the right of recourse and the practical demand.

중국어

《物权法》第176条规定的是人保与物保并存的法律关系, 实称为混合共同担保。 混合共同担保 相对于其他单一的担保形式, 具有更强的债权保障性, 同时也更加负复杂。 本文是对该规定是否具 有合理性, 以及其内部追偿问题、 担保人应否享有代位权问题进行的讨论。 从我国混合担保的发展 进程来看, 意思自治优先具有合理性, 其符合民法基本原则, 符合担保制度的逻辑关系。 该制度实 现顺位上的规定, 采用的是有约从约, 无约债务人物保优先。 除债务人物保外, 债权人自由选择物 保或是人保实现债权。 从立法角度而言“无约债务人物保优先”符合立法者的原意, 保障效率, 同时 避免了当债务人物保存在时, 对作为担保人的第三人的不公。 “除债务人物保外, 债权人自由选择物 保或是人保实现债权”是物权强制优先说的否认, 也是对《物权法》担保人间地位平等性的承认。 但 是本文对无约时绝对优先实现债务人物保制度的合理性存在疑问。 对于担保人追偿权问题, 本文从 学说、 体系解释以及比较法上肯定了其内部可依照一定比例行使追偿权。 对担保人应否享有代位 权, 从其与追偿权的关系以及实践需求上看, 担保人代位权应为法律所承认。