论债权债务关系中保证人的诉讼地位

发布时间：2018-05-20 19:47

本文选题：保证责任 + 一般保证　；参考：《郑州大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：保证制度自其公布以来,对资金融通起着越来越重要的作用。随着市场对保证的需求愈加迫切,保证的相关法律的要求也越来越细致,但是我国对保证制度的规定,内容依然比较抽象。譬如本文试图探讨的保证人在诉讼中的地位,我国《民事诉讼法司法解释》对此仅有一条规定。但是在司法实践中,并不是所有的债权人都严格按照《民事诉讼法司法解释》的规定去执行,例如,在连带保证中债权人享有选择权。因此,本文试图对保证人在诉讼中的地位问题进行探讨。保证人承担保证责任以保证关系成立为基础。按照保证合同中保证方式的不同,可以将保证区分为一般保证和连带责任保证,主要区别在于保证人享有的权利不同。按照我国现行《担保法》及其司法解释,一般保证人享有其专有权利——先诉抗辩权,因此,债权人在没有事先要求债务人履行其清偿债务的义务并确定债务人“不能”清偿主债务之前,是不能请求一般保证人直接承担保证责任的。按照现行法律的规定,债权人不能只列一般保证人为被告。而在连带责任保证中,保证人不享有先诉抗辩权,其承担保证责任并不强调主债务人“不能”履行,只要主债务人不履行债务,债权人就可以请求其承担保证责任。因此,依照现行法律,在发生诉讼时,由于保证人和主债务人在清偿中的地位相同,债权人既能够单独去起诉保证人,也能单独起诉债务人,也能一同起诉。但是,现行法律的规定与我国《民事诉讼法》的立法精神是相悖的,根据我国民事诉讼法的精神,只有在确定了当事人的地位之后才能据此划分其法律责任。另外值得探讨的是,如果连带保证同时又是共同保证,债权人在起诉时,仅仅起诉了其中的部分保证人,但是执行之后主债务依然不能得到完全的清偿,此时,债权人是否可以再起诉其他的保证人。根据《担保法》相关规定,债权人对自己的诉权享有选择的权利,这表示债权人可以选择行使权利的对象。法律赋予债权人选择的权利是一种“选择权”而不是放弃行使权利,其选择向其中一个或多个保证人不代表放弃对另外的保证人,除非债权人本人放弃了对其他担保人的权利。如果债权人既没有对其他担保人主张其权利,也未曾对其表示放弃权利,根据民法的立法宗旨,没有明确表示对权利的放弃则意味着从来没有放弃权利,则该权利会保留。是以,没有向其中某个或某些保证人主张其债权并不意味着放弃了主张的权利,债权人对这些保证人仍然可以主张权利。
[Abstract]:Since its publication, the guarantee system has played a more and more important role in financing. With the increasing demand of the market for the guarantee, the requirements of the relevant laws of the guarantee are becoming more and more detailed, but the provisions of the guarantee system in our country, the content is still relatively abstract. For example, there is only one provision in the Judicial interpretation of Civil procedure Law. However, in judicial practice, not all creditors are strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Civil procedure Law of Judicial interpretation, for example, in the joint guarantee creditor has the right of option. Therefore, this paper attempts to discuss the status of guarantor in litigation. The guarantor assumes the responsibility of surety on the basis of the establishment of the surety relationship. According to the different ways of guaranty in the guarantee contract, the guarantee can be divided into general warranty and joint and several liability guarantee, the main difference is that the guarantor has different rights. According to the current guarantee Law of our country and its judicial interpretation, the general surety enjoys its exclusive right-the right to plead in advance. Creditors cannot ask the general surety to assume direct liability for security without first requiring the debtor to discharge its obligation to discharge its debts and to determine that the debtor is "unable" to discharge the principal obligation. Under the current law, creditors cannot name only the general surety as the defendant. But in the joint and several liability guarantee, the surety does not have the right to plead first, its undertaking surety does not emphasize the main debtor "cannot" perform, as long as the main debtor does not perform the debt, the creditor may request it to undertake the surety responsibility. Thus, under the current law, since the guarantor and the principal debtor are in the same position in the settlement when an action takes place, the creditor can either sue the guarantor alone, the debtor separately, or the debtor together. However, the provisions of the current law are contrary to the legislative spirit of the Civil procedure Law of our country. According to the spirit of the Civil procedure Law of our country, only after confirming the status of the parties can they be divided into legal responsibilities. It is also worth exploring that if the joint and several guarantee is also a joint guarantee, the creditor sued only some of the guarantors when suing, but the main debt still cannot be fully repaid after execution. At this time, Whether creditors can sue other guarantors. According to the relevant provisions of the Guaranty Law, the creditor has the right of choice to his right of action, which means that the creditor can choose the object to exercise the right. The right given by law to the creditor to choose is a "right of option" rather than a waiver of the exercise of the right, and its choice to one or more of the guarantors does not represent a waiver of the right to another surety unless the creditor himself waives his rights against the other guarantor. If the creditor neither claims its rights against other guarantors nor waives their rights, according to the legislative purpose of the civil law, the failure to express expressly the waiver of the right means that the right has never been waived, then the right will be retained. Therefore, the failure to claim a claim against one or some of the guarantors does not mean that the claim is waived, and the creditor can still claim the right against the surety.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】