摘要
基于《民法典》的原则性规定,担保人之间若无约定则无追偿权,然而混合担保人内部追偿权的存否争论仍在解释论和立法论两个层面上继续。肯定说从连带债务、不当得利与代位权的法释义角度以及公平原则和效率原则的法律价值角度,试图论证混合担保人内部追偿权的存在,但均难成立。研究表明,无论是基于解释论还是公平效率的法律价值,都应持混合担保内部追偿权否定说。"民法典担保制度解释"第13条再次强调了"约定可追,无约定不可追",基本确立了"若无特殊约定,混合担保人相互间应无追偿权"的规则,即采混合担保人内部追偿权的否定说,彰显了意思自治的私法精神。
Although the Interpretation of the Guarantee System of Civil Code states that there is no right of contribution between the providers of real and personal security without such an agreement,the debate still continues in two aspects:legal interpretation and legislation.The legal interpretations based on joint and several debt,unjust enrichment and subrogation,which are made by the supporter of the right of contribution,are untenable.And from the perspective of legislation,such a right is neither fair nor efficient.If the providers of real and personal security have no agreement about contribution,there should thus not be such a right.Though this theory is basically adopted by Article 13 of the Interpretation of Guarantee System of Civil Code,paragraph 2 of Article 13 is an unreasonable absorption of the opposing theory and thus should be deleted.
作者
彭诚信
吴越
Peng Chengxin;Wu Yue
出处
《南京社会科学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2021年第7期75-85,共11页
Nanjing Journal of Social Sciences
基金
国家社科基金重大项目“大数据时代个人数据保护与数据权利体系研究”(18ZDA145)的阶段性成果
关键词
混合担保
追偿权
意思自治
担保制度解释
mixed securities
right of contribution
party autonomy
Interpretation of the Guarantee System of Civil Code
