摘要
为主债务人履行债务提供担保的保证人,在主债务人对债权人享有抵销权但未行使时,理应受到法律保护。保护模式主要有二:一为允许保证人援用主债务人抵销权的“抵销权模式”,另一为赋予保证人可抵销性抗辩权的“抗辩权模式”。两种模式,有同有异。其中,二者最大的差异体现在法律效果上。保证人援用主债务人的抵销权,会带来主债务消灭、保证债务消灭与主动债权(主债务人对债权人的债权)消灭三重效果。而保证人主张可抵销性抗辩权,却只产生阻止债权人行使保证债权的效能。两种模式在比较法上都不是“孤军奋战”,而是有数量不一的支持者。两种模式,在保护保证人利益这个目标上,具有一致性。但是,“抵销权模式”破坏了抵销权成立要满足的相互性要件,干预了主债务人处分其债权的自由。两种模式之中,“抗辩权模式”更为妥当,更值得采纳。因此,《民法典》第702条赋予保证人可抵销性抗辩权,而非允许保证人援用主债务人已有的抵销权,具有正当性,值得肯定。
When the principal obligor obtains the right to set-off against the obligee,and the exercise of which is still pending,the law should provide protection for the surety.This protection can be carried out in two ways.One way named“the right to set-off model”,allows the surety to invoke the right of the principal obligor to set-off.The other way is a“defences model”,which gives the surety defences arising from the situation for setting-off.There are many differences between the two models.Among them,the biggest difference lies in the legal effect.If the suretyship applies the right to set-off which belongs to the principal obligor will bring about triple effects,namely the elimination of the principal obligation,the non-existence of the suretyship,and the elimination of the active claim.These two models are consistent in the goal of protecting the interests of the surety.However,the“the right to set-off model”undermines the mutuality of set-offs and interferes with the freedom of the principal obligor to dispose of claims.Therefore,the latter model is more appropriate and more worthy of adoption.Thus,Article 702 of Civil Code,which grants the surety defences arising from the situation for setting-off,rather than allowing him to invoke the right to set-off owned by the principal debtor,is justified and deserves recognition.
出处
《南大法学》
CSSCI
2021年第5期18-42,共25页
NanJing University Law Journal
关键词
保证
抵销
抵销权
形成权
可抵销性抗辩权
民法典
Suretyship
Set-Off
Right to Set-Off
Right of Formation
Defences Arising from the Situation for Setting-Off
Civil Code
