混合共同擔保中擔保人內部求償的解釋論

Analysis on the Internal Recourse among Security Providers in Mixed Joint Guarantee-- Based on the Right of Subrogation

就混合共同擔保中擔保人之間的內部求償關係，我國司法實踐大多基於《擔保法司法解釋》第38條予以承認。但僅基於公平等原則而作出此種推斷，欠缺說服力，類推適用連帶債務等規定，允許其相互之間直接求償的學說繼而被提出。在擔保人之間欠缺相互擔保的直接意思的場合，此種解釋論仍是著眼於對其相互之間的意思自治屏障的直接刺破，並無法真正彌合圍繞《物權法》第176條所產生的學說爭議。對此，在以《擔保法司法解釋》第38條作為請求權基礎的同時，仍應堅持最高人民法院在司法判決中的基本論斷，以代位求償為基礎對該條重新加以解釋，將代位權理論予以“回填”並補全其內涵。

According to the judicial practice in China, the right of recourse in the mixed joint guarantee has been recognized based on Article 38 of Judicial Interpretation on Security Law. The conclusion, only based on the principle of justice, is not convincible. Thus, the viewpoint on the right of internal recourse among security providers was proposed. In other words, regulations on the right of recourse among solidary debtors should be applied to relationships among security providers by analogy. Such an interpretation still focused on internal relationships among security providers although they didn't mean to provide security for each other. However, considering the doctrinal errors existing in the viewpoint, it couldn't be treated as the solution to disputes over Article 176 of Property Law. Therefore, as to the interpretation of Article 38 of Judicial Interpretation on Security Law, arguments in the judgment made by supreme court should be persisted. And the recourse among security providers should be based on the right of subrogation.