论混合共同担保中的追偿权问题

发布时间：2018-05-30 07:29

本文选题：混合共同担保 + 物保　；参考：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：近几年来,混合共同担保中的追偿权问题,业已成为各个法院审判实务中无法规避、急需解决的争议话题。本文试图从第三人提供的他物保与人保并在这一情形下追偿的可行性与合理性角度出发,择重探讨如何确定、计算追偿的具体分担额及追偿过程中的必要限制,希冀为将来的司法解释肯定相互追偿权提供立法依据和操作规则。本文对症追偿问题采用的是循序递进地方式展开论述:一是通过分析各担保主体间的法律关系,追偿的法律基础—混合担保中担保义务主体间存在连带债务关系,更进一步的道明实际履行了代偿义务的担保人有权向尚未履行代偿义务的那个担保人追偿;二是在认可相互追偿权的前提下,分析、论证、举例说明采取何种科学合理的计算规则来确定数个担保人各自应当分担的份额;三是追偿也不是不受任何限制的,担保人的追偿权有必要进行限制,包括序位的限制、意思自治的限制、保证方式的限制、担保期间的限制等等,使追偿过程更加符合法理、情理。通过本文辨证分析看出目前我国《物权法》第176条的规定还难以称得上完美,仍有进一步改善的需求。简单的否定担保人间的相互追偿权,轻视追偿权的相关问题,终将导致司法裁判的复杂化,法律适用的差别化,当事人利益的破坏化。本文具体分五个部分展开叙述。第一部分引言,提出问题的症结所在,以案例的形式更加生动形象的说明现今审判实务中存在的争议焦点:履行了代偿义务的担保人能否向未履行代偿义务的担保人追偿,追偿的方式方法如何等。第二部分概述混合共同担保的概念与类型、责任关系,厘清相关概念、类型与责任关系的同时,为下文着重叙述追偿权可行性和合理性问题进行铺垫。第三部分重点讨论混合共同担保追偿问题。对症各家争鸣的不同观点,辩证的提出自己的意见,应容许担保人间彼此的追偿权,着重论证了混合共同担保中担保人相互追偿的合理性和可行性。第四部分详述追偿的份额与限制。关于追偿的份额,实践中主要存在两种做法,一是按照人数平均分担,二是按照比例分担。按照比例分担似乎更科学、合理,也便于当事人接受,使裁判的社会效果更加明显,并举例予以说明。且提出按照比例分担的计算方法必须厘清两个问题,一是仅存在于逾额混合共同担保中,二是除去债务人自己提供的自物保后计算份额。关于追偿的限制问题,则从序位、意思自治、保证方式和担保期间四方面进行限制论述。第五部分总结全文,得出结论。再次指出将来的法律或司法解释对追偿问题无法回避,必须作出明确的规定,至少也该当明确以下叁个问题:第一,需明确第三人提供他物保和人保并存时,履行了代偿义务的人可以向未履行代偿义务的人追偿。第二,认可相互追偿权的前提下,明确追偿份额的计算方法。第三,明确追偿份额的计算方法,还须明确追偿至少有顺位限制,仅能先向终极义务人主债务人追偿,主债务人不能清偿部分,其他被追偿人始得负责。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the right of recourse in the mixed joint guarantee has become a controversial topic which can not be avoided and urgently solved in the trial practice of various courts. This article tries to discuss how to determine and calculate the specific points of recourse from the perspective of the feasibility and rationality of the third party's material insurance and human insurance and the pursuit of compensation in this case. The necessary restrictions in the process of burden and recourse are expected to provide legislative basis and operational rules for the future judicial interpretation of mutual recourse. This paper uses a sequential progressive discussion on the issue of symptomatic recovery: one is to analyze the legal relationship between the various guaranty subjects, the legal basis of the recovery, the guarantee obligation in the mixed guarantee. There is a joint debt relationship between the subjects, and further clear that the guarantor who actually performs the obligation of compensation has the right to recourse to the guarantor who has not fulfilled the obligation of compensation. Two, on the premise of recognition of the mutual compensation right, analysis, demonstration, and illustration of what scientific and reasonable rules of calculation are taken to determine the respective points of the guarantor. The three is that the recourse is not unrestricted, and the right of the guarantor's recourse is restricted, including the restriction of the preface, the restriction of the autonomy of the meaning, the limitation of the way of guarantee, the limitation of the guarantee period and so on, so that the process of recourse is more in accordance with the jurisprudence and the reason. Through the dialectical analysis of this article, we have seen the 176th articles of the property law in China. The provisions are still difficult to be perfect and still have the need for further improvement. Simply denying the mutual recourse of the guaranty and ignoring the related issues of the right of recourse will eventually lead to the complexity of the judiciary, the differentiation of the application of the law, and the destruction of the interests of the parties. This article is specifically described in five parts. The crux of the problem lies in a more vivid description of the controversial focus in the practice of the present trial in the form of case: whether the guarantor who has fulfilled the obligation of compensation can recourse to the guarantor of the obligation unfulfilled, and how to recover it. The second part outlines the concept and type of the mixed co guarantee, the relationship of responsibility, Li Qingxiang At the same time, the third part focuses on the discussion of the problem of the recovery of the right of compensation for the right of recourse. The third part focuses on the discussion of the problem of the mixed joint guarantee recourse. The rationality and feasibility of mutual compensation in the guarantee. The fourth part details the share and limitation of recourse. In practice, there are two main practices in the practice of recourse, one is the average share of the number and the two is proportionally shared. It seems more scientific, reasonable and convenient for the parties to accept the social effect of the referee. The results are more obvious and are illustrated with examples. And it is suggested that the proportionally shared calculation method must clarify two problems, one is only in the excess of mixed joint guarantee, and the two is to remove the post guarantee calculation share of the debtor itself. The limitation on recovery is from the preface, the autonomy of the meaning, the way of guarantee and the Quartet during the guarantee. The fifth part summarizes the full text and draws a conclusion. Again, it is pointed out that the future law or judicial interpretation can not be avoided. It must make clear provisions and at least to clear the following three questions: first, when the third people provide him with the coexistence of the insurer's insurance, the person who has fulfilled the obligation of compensation can not be carried out. Compensation for compensation. Second, under the premise of recognition of mutual recourse, clear the calculation method of the share of recourse. Third, clear the calculation method of the share of recourse, it must be clear that the recourse has at least a cis limit, it can only be recourse to the ultimate obligor's principal debtor, the main debtor can not be paid off, and the other is responsible for the recourse.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.2

【参考文献】