earticle

영어

The mixed joint guarantee is stipulated in Article 392 of China's Civil Code, which is a continuation of Article 176 of the Property Law. The latest "Judicial Interpretation of the Guarantee System" has added a new guarantor to recover after the debt is paid. As well as the provisions on subrogation, the introduction of this interpretation is the result of further development on the basis of the solid “Civil Code”. However, in the specific judicial practice, there are still problems such as the protection of the interests of the mortgagee after the subject of the joint guarantee, so the legal provisions for mixed joint guarantees need to be further improved. In the definition of “commonality” in the hybrid guarantee, the creditor and the guarantor should be considered on an equal basis. The joint guarantor cannot be simply regarded as a joint and several liability relationship without intentional contact. The focus of the existing theory of disputes over the possibility of creditors’ internal recovery in academic circles is whether there are joint debts between guarantors. The negative theory should prevail. However, denying the recourse between guarantors will create an unfair situation. Use subrogation to solve this dilemma. On the basis of resolving the joint guarantor’s right of recourse and in-depth analysis of the application of subrogation to solve the guarantor’s claim, the interests of the subsequent mortgagee should be fully protected. The status of the guarantor and the guarantor should be balanced. The provisions of the joint guarantee can learn from the “Korean Civil Law” and the legal prece-dents to distinguish the ownership of joint mortgages in two situations: simultaneous distribution and non-time distribution to explore which compensation method is more conducive to protecting the rights and interests of subsequent mortgagees. The judicial interpretations to be issued again in the future should focus on Article 392 of the Civil Code and Articles 13 and 14 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Guarantee System to improve the provisions on specific matters of joint guarantee.

중국어

混合共同担保被规定在中国《民法典》第392条, 是《物权法》第176条之规定的延续并未有所变 动, 最新《担保制度司法解释》中新增加了担保人在清偿债务后追偿以及代位问题的规定, 该解释的 出台是在稳固《民法典》的基础上进一步发展的结果。 但具体司法实践中仍然存在共同担保标的物 上后顺位抵押权人利益保护等问题, 因此对混合共同担保的法律规定还有待进一步完善。 混合担保中对于“共同性”含义的界定, 要将债权人与担保人放在平等地位予以考虑, 不能简单 将共同担保人看待为无需意思联络的连带责任关系。 学理界对债权人内部追偿可能性现存学说争 议的焦点为担保人之间是否存在连带之债, 应以否定说为准, 但是否认担保人之间的追偿性又会产 生不公平的局面, 因此需要以代位权来解决此困境。 在解决共同担保人的追偿权以及深入分析在适 用代位权解决担保人求偿问题的基础上, 要充分保障后顺位抵押权人的利益应平衡看待物上保证 人与保证人的地位。 对共同担保的规定可借鉴《韩国民法》及判例区分共同抵押物的归属不同时以 同时分配, 异时分配两种情形探讨何种受偿方式更利于保护后顺位抵押权人权益。 未来再次出台的 司法解释, 应以《民法典》第392条以及《担保制度司法解释》第13、 14条为中心完善对共同担保具体 事项的规定。