一、保證的概念

I．Concept of Suretyship

根據(jù)《民法典》[i]第681條，擔(dān)保是指由擔(dān)保人“為保障債權(quán)的實(shí)現(xiàn)”而作出的“當(dāng)債務(wù)人不履行到期債務(wù)或者發(fā)生當(dāng)事人約定的情形時(shí)，保證人履行債務(wù)或者承擔(dān)責(zé)任”的約定。

According to Article 681 of the Civil Code[ii], suretyship refers to a promise made by the surety “for the purpose of ensuring the enforcement of an underlying claim” that he would “perform the obligation or bear the liability when the debtor fails to perform the obligation when it is due or acircumstance as agreed by the parties occurs”.

二、保證方式

II．Forms of Suretyship

中國(guó)法項(xiàng)下的保證方式有兩種?！睹穹ǖ洹返?/span>686條第1款規(guī)定：“保證的方式包括一般保證和連帶責(zé)任保證。”明確保證的方式包括一般保證和連帶責(zé)任保證。

There are two forms of suretyship under the PRC law. Article 686.1 of the Civil Code provides that “Suretyship consists of general suretyship and suretyship with joint and several liability.”

三、保證方式的推定規(guī)則

III．Presumption Rules on Form of Suretyship

保證方式為任意事項(xiàng)，可由當(dāng)事人在保證合同中進(jìn)行約定。如若當(dāng)事人沒(méi)有約定或約定不明時(shí)，則需要運(yùn)用保證方式的推定規(guī)則推斷確定保證方式。

The suretyship form of is an arbitrary matter that can be agreed mutually by parties involved in the suretyship contract. If there is no agreement on suretyship form or the agreement is unclear, the presumption rules shall apply.

《擔(dān)保法》第19條規(guī)定：“當(dāng)事人對(duì)保證方式?jīng)]有約定或者約定不明確的，按照連帶責(zé)任保證承擔(dān)保證責(zé)任。” 明確了當(dāng)事人對(duì)保證方式?jīng)]有約定或者約定不明確時(shí)的推定規(guī)則，即推定保證方式為連帶責(zé)任保證。其理由在于，明確了保證人承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任保證，不僅更有利于保障債權(quán)的實(shí)現(xiàn)，而且也使保證人明確對(duì)保證方式不約定或約定不明的法律后果，從而對(duì)保證方式作出適當(dāng)選擇。[iii]

Article 19 of the Security Law provided: “where there is no agreement on the form of the suretyship or the relevant agreement is unclear, the surety shall bear the liability as in the form of a suretyship with joint and several liability.” This clause clarified the presumed suretyship form to be joint and several liability suretyship. The reason of such arrangement was to both facilitate the realization of the creditor’s right and motivate the surety to make a specific agreement on the form of suretyship in the contract, otherwise the surety would bear the adverse consequence thereof.[iv]

但《民法典》第686條第2款對(duì)該推定規(guī)則做了顛覆性修改，規(guī)定：“當(dāng)事人在保證合同中對(duì)保證方式?jīng)]有約定或者約定不明確的，按照一般保證承擔(dān)保證責(zé)任。”明確了當(dāng)事人對(duì)保證方式?jīng)]有約定或者約定不明確時(shí)的推定規(guī)則，即推定保證方式為一般保證。究其原因，主要在于保證具有無(wú)償性和單務(wù)性，保證人本就僅承擔(dān)義務(wù)而不享有權(quán)利，在保證方式?jīng)]有約定或者約定不明確時(shí)，推定保證人承擔(dān)更重的連帶責(zé)任保證，加重了保證人的擔(dān)保責(zé)任，在債務(wù)人有足夠的財(cái)產(chǎn)可用于清償而仍要求保證人承擔(dān)擔(dān)保責(zé)任時(shí)，則明顯有失公平。

However, Article 686.2 of the Civil Code makes subverted modification on the presumption rules as set in the Security Law by providing that “Where there is no agreement in the suretyship contract on the form of the suretyship or the relevant agreement is unclear, the surety shall bear the liability as in the form of a general suretyship”. According to which, the presumed form of suretyship is now general suretyship instead of suretyship with joint and several liability. The rationale behind this change is that suretyship is gratuitous and unilateral and the surety has bear the obligation with no right under asuretyship. It would be obviously unfair to further aggravate surety’s obligation by presuming the suretyship as joint and several liability when no agreement reached on the suretyship form or the relevant agreement is unclear, especially when the debtor himself is capable of performing the obligation or bearing the liability.

本條也反映出，與《擔(dān)保法》相比，《民法典》在立法傾向上已發(fā)生了變化，即已由注重對(duì)債權(quán)人的保護(hù)向平衡債權(quán)人和擔(dān)保人的利益轉(zhuǎn)變，因此，在無(wú)法作出有說(shuō)服力的合同解釋的情況下，應(yīng)向責(zé)任較輕的方向進(jìn)行推定。[v]這種立法傾向上的變化，不僅在本條得以體現(xiàn)，在保證與債務(wù)加入的識(shí)別等相關(guān)規(guī)定中也得到了體現(xiàn)。

This clause also reflects that Civil Code has changed the legislative inclinationand values more on the balance between the creditor and the surety comparingwith the Security Law’s preference for protection on creditors. Therefore, in the case where there is no convincing interpretation on the suretyship contract,a presumption in the direction of less obligation on surety’s side shall bemade.[vi] This inclination can also be seen on recognition rule between suretyship and joining of the obligation.

四、推定規(guī)則的時(shí)間效力

IV．Time Effect of the New Presumption Rules set in the Civil Code

《民法典》施行后簽訂的保證合同如對(duì)保證方式無(wú)約定或約定不明，均應(yīng)按照《民法典》第686條規(guī)定的推定規(guī)則推定為一般保證。但《民法典》施行前簽訂的保證合同如對(duì)保證方式無(wú)約定或約定不明，則應(yīng)適用《擔(dān)保法》推定為連帶責(zé)任保證，還是應(yīng)適用《民法典》推定為一般保證？

For those contracts executed after the effectiveness of the Civil Code, it is no doubt that the presumption rules to determine the suretyship form as set out in the Civil Code shall apply. The problem is which presumption rule shall apply for contracts signed and executed before the Civil Code.

“民法典施行前的法律事實(shí)引起的民事糾紛案件，當(dāng)時(shí)的法律、司法解釋有規(guī)定，適用當(dāng)時(shí)的法律、司法解釋的規(guī)定，但是適用民法典的規(guī)定更有利于保護(hù)民事主體合法權(quán)益，更有利于維護(hù)社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)秩序，更有利于弘揚(yáng)社會(huì)主義核心價(jià)值觀的除外。”因此，《民法典》施行前簽訂的保證合同如對(duì)保證方式無(wú)約定或約定不明，原則上應(yīng)適用《擔(dān)保法》推定為連帶責(zé)任保證。例如，在何福軍與張志峰保證合同糾紛案[vii]中，法院認(rèn)為，擔(dān)保人為債權(quán)人與債務(wù)人之間發(fā)生的借款提供擔(dān)保，未約定擔(dān)保方式，按照當(dāng)時(shí)的擔(dān)保法及其司法解釋的規(guī)定，應(yīng)視為連帶保證責(zé)任擔(dān)保。

The principle of non-retroactivity of law is a general principle, according to the Article 2 of Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Time Effect for Application of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (the “Provisions on Time Effect”), “for civil dispute cases arising from legal facts before the effectiveness of the Civil Code, if there are relevant provisions in the laws and judicial interpretations at that time, such provisions shall apply”. Therefore, if the suretyship contract signed before the implementation of the Civil Code and has no specific agreement on the suretyship form or the agreementis unclear, the surety shall be presumed to bear a joint and several liability based on the Security Law. I.e., in the case of He Fujun v.Zhang Zhifeng[viii], the court held that the contract was signed before the Civil Code and the effective security law and judicial interpretations then shall apply. Given that there is no agreed suretyship form, the form shall presume to be suretyship with joint and several liability.

但能否適用“有利溯及適用規(guī)則”，根據(jù)“三個(gè)更有利于”，賦予《民法典》“推定為一般保證”的推定規(guī)則具有溯及力？筆者認(rèn)為不能。因?yàn)?ldquo;更有利于保護(hù)民事主體合法權(quán)益”中“民事主體”的表述并沒(méi)有明確是哪一方民事主體，在有利溯及判定上，應(yīng)當(dāng)限定在對(duì)各方當(dāng)事人均更加有利或者至少對(duì)一方更加有利的同時(shí)不損害其他方權(quán)益的情形。[ix]如賦予《民法典》“推定為一般保證”的推定規(guī)則具有溯及力，雖然有助于保護(hù)保證人的利益，但會(huì)損害債權(quán)人的利益。而且，法律保護(hù)的當(dāng)事人合理預(yù)期，是當(dāng)事人基于對(duì)行為時(shí)的法律信賴所形成的預(yù)期。作為《擔(dān)保法》的推定規(guī)則，一經(jīng)公布即視為當(dāng)事人知曉。因此，當(dāng)事人在《民法典》施行前簽訂保證合同時(shí)的合理預(yù)期，應(yīng)該是“當(dāng)事人對(duì)保證方式?jīng)]有約定或者約定不明確的，按照連帶責(zé)任保證承擔(dān)保證責(zé)任。”若適用“有利溯及適用規(guī)則”例外原則，賦予《民法典》“推定為一般保證”的推定規(guī)則具有溯及力，將打破當(dāng)事人合理預(yù)期，不利于維護(hù)社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)秩序。

Some may refer to rule of beneficial retroactive application as an exception for the principle of non-retroactivity of law, the rule can also be found in Article 2 of the Provisions on Time Effect as follows: “... unless the application of the provisions of the Civil Code is more beneficial to the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of civil subjects, to the maintenance of social and economic order and to the promotion of socialist core values”(the “Three More-beneficial Standard”). However, the writer is of the negative opinion because the situation does not fit in the Three More-beneficial Standard and cannot trigger the exception. Firstly, the expression “more beneficial to the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of civil subjects” does not specify which party’s interest is of more favorable. Beneficial retroactive application rule shall be utilized to the extent that it would benefit both parties, or benefit at least one party on the condition that the other party’s interest would not be detracted[x]. If the new presumption rules of surety form in Civil Code apply,it would be harmful to the creditor’s interest. Moreover, the reasonable expectations of the parties are based on the law at the time of the legal behavior and shall be protected. As the presumption rules stipulated in the Security Law, it shall deemed to be known to the parties once it is publicized. Therefore, the reasonable expectation of parties when signing a suretyship contract before the implementation of the Civil Code shall be “if there is no agreement on the form of the suretyship or the relevant agreement is unclear, the surety shall bear the liability as in the form of asuretyship with joint and several liability.” If the beneficial retroactive application rule applies, it would be contrary to parties’ reasonable expectations and not beneficial to the maintenance of social and economic order.

五、推定規(guī)則的適用條件

V．Conditions for Application of the Rule

適用保證方式的推定規(guī)則，須是當(dāng)事人對(duì)保證方式?jīng)]有約定或者約定不明確時(shí)方可適用。例如，保證合同的文字表述中，有的具有債務(wù)人應(yīng)當(dāng)先承擔(dān)責(zé)任的意思表示，有的又不具有債務(wù)人應(yīng)當(dāng)先承擔(dān)責(zé)任的意思表示，這是典型的約定不明確的情形。再例如，在王嘉慧與龍雪怡、李偉龍民間J貸糾紛案[xi]中，法院認(rèn)為，保證人雖然在《欠條》的擔(dān)保人欄上簽名，但沒(méi)有明確保證方式，因此對(duì)于債務(wù)人的上述債務(wù)，保證人應(yīng)承擔(dān)一般保證責(zé)任。但如果通過(guò)意思表示的解釋規(guī)則，能夠推知當(dāng)事人的意思表示，確定保證人承擔(dān)的保證責(zé)任方式的，則不能簡(jiǎn)單地直接適用推定規(guī)則。

Presumption rules on form of suretyship shall only be applied where no agreement was made in the suretyship contract on suretyship form or the relevant agreement is unclear. For example, some of the suretyship contracts may convey expressions on both suretyship forms which is a typical situation of unclear agreement. Further, in Wang Jiahui v. Long Xueyi and Li Weilong[xii], the court found that the surety only signed at the corresponding signature block without any agreed suretyship form. Therefore, the court held it to be general suretyship. However, if the intention of the parties could be inferred following theinterpretation rules on expression of intent, the presumption rules shall not be directly applied.

《民法典》第142條第1款規(guī)定：“有相對(duì)人的意思表示的解釋，應(yīng)當(dāng)按照所使用的詞句，結(jié)合相關(guān)條款、行為的性質(zhì)和目的、習(xí)慣以及誠(chéng)信原則，確定意思表示的含義。”確立了意思表示解釋的方法與順序，依次為文義解釋、整體解釋、目的解釋、習(xí)慣解釋以及依據(jù)誠(chéng)信原則解釋。如果順序靠前的解釋方法已經(jīng)足以清楚地探知當(dāng)事人的意思，則應(yīng)當(dāng)就此停止解釋，不再采用其他方法；只有在順序靠前的解釋方法不能清楚地解釋意思表示時(shí)，才需要依次向下嘗試其他方法。例如，在中國(guó)銀行股份有限公司淄博博山支行與淄博萬(wàn)杰醫(yī)院、淄博博易纖維有限公司、萬(wàn)杰集團(tuán)有限責(zé)任公司管轄權(quán)糾紛二審案[xiii]中，法院認(rèn)為，從合同解釋角度來(lái)看，當(dāng)事人對(duì)合同條文發(fā)生爭(zhēng)議時(shí)，必X探究當(dāng)事人內(nèi)在的真實(shí)意思表示，判斷當(dāng)事人真實(shí)的意思表示首要方法是判斷當(dāng)事人字面的意思表示。這是合同解釋中的文義解釋，只有在文義解釋不能確定該條款的準(zhǔn)確含義時(shí)，再運(yùn)用其他解釋方法去確定合同條款的含義以及填補(bǔ)合同的漏洞。另外也需要注意的是，意思表示解釋規(guī)則適用的前提是當(dāng)事人有約定但不清晰。如果當(dāng)事人的意思表示清楚明白，則不需要解釋。只有當(dāng)事人所使用的語(yǔ)言不清楚，模棱兩可，有兩種以上的含義時(shí)才需要解釋。

Article 142.1 of the Civil Code provides: “where an expression of intent is made to a specific person, the meaning of the expression shall be interpreted according to the words and sentences used, with reference to the relevant terms, the nature and purpose of the civil juristic act, the custom, and the principle of good faith.” This establishes the method and sequence of interpretation of meaning of the expression, which are, in order of application, semantic interpretation,overall interpretation, teleological interpretation, customary interpretation and interpretation based on principle of good faith. If a method of higher order is sufficient to clearly ascertain the intention of parties, the processof interpretation shall be terminated. Only when the precedent method fails to ascertain the intention can we move to the subsequent method(s). For example,in the case of BOC Zibo v. Zibo Wanjie Hospital, Zibo Boyi Fibre Ltd. And Wanjie Group Ltd[xiv],the court held that from the perspective of contract interpretation, when parties have disputes on contract terms,parties’ real expression of intention must be ascertained. The primary method for judging the textual meaning of their wordings is known as semantic interpretation.Only when the semantic interpretation method fails to infer the intention,other methods shall be applied to find the meaning of the clauses and fill the gaps. For further attention, only when the wordings of the contract is unclear,ambiguous and/or has more than two meanings does it need to be explained by the interpretation methods aforesaid.

往期文章鏈接

Related Articles

1. 中國(guó)擔(dān)保制度主要問(wèn)題之一：公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保規(guī)則

1. Security System in China I：Rules for company’s external security

[i]除非特別說(shuō)明，本文中的術(shù)語(yǔ)具有“中國(guó)擔(dān)保制度主要問(wèn)題之一公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保規(guī)則”中定義的含義。

[ii]Unless otherwise specified, the terms in this article have the meanings defined in “Security System in China I Rules forcompany’s external security”。

[iii]參見(jiàn)Q國(guó)人大常委會(huì)法制工作委員會(huì)民法室編著：《中華人民共和國(guó)擔(dān)保法釋義》，法律出版社1995年版，第25頁(yè)。

[iv]See the Civil Law Office of the Legal Work Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, Interpretation on the Security Law of PRC(1995),p25.

[v]劉貴祥：《民法典關(guān)于擔(dān)保的幾個(gè)重要問(wèn)題》，《法律適用》2021年第1期。

[vi] See Liu Guixiang,Several Important Issues Relating to Security in the Civil Code, Application of the Law, 2021, No.01.

[vii]江蘇省盱眙縣人民法院（2020）蘇0830民初4398號(hào)民事判決書。

[viii] Case no. (2020) Su 0830 Minchu 4398, the Primary People’s Court of Xvyu County of Jiangsu Province,

[ix]參見(jiàn)最高人民法院民法典貫徹實(shí)施工作領(lǐng)導(dǎo)小組：《<最高人民法院關(guān)于適用<民法典>時(shí)間效力的若干規(guī)定>的理解與適用》，《人民司法》，2021年第10期。

[x] See Supreme Court’s Working Group on Implementing the Civil Code, Understanding and Application on Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Time Effect for Application of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, People’s Justice, 2021, N O.10.

[xi]廣東省清遠(yuǎn)市清新區(qū)人民法院（2021）粵1803民初18號(hào)民事判決書。

[xii] Case no. (2021) Yue 1803 Minchu 18, the Primary People’s Court of Qingxin District of Qingyuan City, Guangdong Province , .

[xiii]最高人民法院(2007)民二終字第99號(hào)民事裁定書。

[xiv] Case no. (2007) Min’er Zhongzi 99, the Supreme People’s court of PRC.