論多數保證人及物上保證人間之責任分擔──兼評最高法院99年度台上字第1204號民事判決

The Study of Contribution Between Joint Guarantee and Joint Mortgage: Also Commenting on the Supreme Court Tai-Shang-Zi No.1204 (2010) Civil Division

現行我國民法對於債務提供擔保之方式，大體可分為「人的擔保」與「物的擔保」二類，前者係以保證人之資力或信用作為債務履行之擔保，規定於民法債編；後者則係規定於民法物權編，又以由債務人或物上保證人之財產直接供為債權抵押之方式為主要。隨著商業之交易型態日益複雜，為強化擔保之機能、分散擔保之風險，採取共同擔保方式為之者實非少見，新修正之民法第879條第2項即是針對擔保方式併存運用之情形加以規範。惟對同一債務有數保證人及物上保證人之併存擔保時，甚至其中一人同時身兼雙重身分之情形，究如何算定各擔保人間之內部責任分擔，於法並無明文，致實務及學說上有不同之計算方式，雖最高法院99年度台上字第1204號判決似已對此爭議有代表性之法律見解，惟針對多數保證人及物上保證人間之責任分擔，誠有進一步釐清及討論之必要，故本文藉由設例來說明及比較各說計算方式之不同，嘗試探尋較細緻之解釋，以求得對各擔保人合理公平的分配方式，並同時兼顧債權與物權間事物本質之不同。

The current Civil Code provides guarantees for debt can be mainly divided into two categories: “guaranty” and “mortgage”. The former is based on the guarantor’s capital or credit as a guarantee for debt performance and is stipulated in chapter 2 of Civil Code; the latter is stipulated in chapter 3 of Civil Code and is mainly based on the way that a debtor or guarantor directly provides the mortgage for the property. With the increasing complexity of commercial transaction patterns, it is common that people adopt a joint guarantee or joint mortgage to strengthen the function of guaranty and decrease the risk of guaranty, and this co-existence situation is regulated by the newly amended Civil Code Article 879 (2). However, in the case of joint guarantee and joint mortgage for the same debt, even one of them has double qualification, how to calculate the internal responsibility sharing among the various guarantors is still a difficult question, and there are different ways of calculations from practice and academy. Although the Supreme Court TaiShang-Zi No.1204 (2010) Civil Division appeared to be representative of legal opinions on this dispute, it is still necessary to further clarify and discuss the contribution between joint guarantee and joint mortgage. Therefore, this article uses an example to illustrate and compare those different calculations, trying to find a more detailed explanation for achieving a reasonable and fair distribution, and take into account the difference between rights in personam and rights in rem.