擔保人內部追償權之向死而生

擔保人內部追償權之有無，是私法上一道經典價值判斷難題，長久以來聚訟紛紜。在合同約定闕如時，法律為何應當肯定或否定擔保人之內部追償權？該問題並非混合擔保獨有，而見於所有擔保，實為任意性規定之設計問題。基於對最大多數擔保人意願之分析，以肯定說為任意性規定，不僅契合意思自治即自由價值，亦符合效率，且無關乎公平。在解釋論上，以上價值判斷可融入對《民法典》第700條之歷史或目的解釋，與其他解釋一道證成保證人之內部追償權，並類推適用於混合擔保等其他場合。

It is a classic problem of value judgment in private law and has been long debated, whether there should be a right of contribution between providers of security. The underlying key question is why the law should recognize or deny the contribution right between security providers in the absence of any agreement. Different from the existing literature, this paper argues, primarily based on an analysis of the potential intention of most security providers, that it is in accordance with the value of freedom(private autonomy)and efficiency, and irrelevant to the value of fairness, to set up the contribution right as the default rule. These value judgements can be integrated into a historical or teleological interpretation of Article 700 of the Civil Code, which supports the contribution right between co-sureties de lege latatogether with other methods of interpretation of Article 700. Similar contribution right between other types of security providers can also be established per analogy.