共同擔保之研究：以保證與抵押權設定為中心

Abstract

本論文以保證與抵押權設定為核心，並以共同保證及共同抵押之異同與2007年我國民法修正所採之「物保與人保責任平等說」精神為基礎，探討共同擔保人間內部應分擔責任之計算及相關延伸爭議，蓋對於同一債務有數保證人及物上保證人之併存擔保時，甚至其中一人同時身兼雙重身分之情形，究如何算定各擔保人間之內部責任分擔，修正後民法第879條第2項並無明文規範，致實務及學說上有不同之計算方式，雖最高法院99年度台上字第1204號判決似已對此爭議有代表性之法律見解，惟仍有進一步釐清及討論之必要，同時觀察該判決對日後實務見解之影響及發展。因此，本論文藉由設例說明及比較各說計算方式之不同，嘗試探尋較細緻之解釋，在多數保證人及多數物上保證人之情形，宜採「人保集團與物保個別責任之計算方式說」；而對於一人同時身兼人保及物保之雙重身分者，宜採「二人說」（宜稱「資格數說」）為算定，俾以求得對各擔保人合理公平的分配方式，並同時兼顧債權與物權間事物本質之不同，期能透過本論文之研究得將我國共同擔保法制所生不同類型態樣之責任分擔計算，予以透徹完整之呈現及類型化，以減少法條適用上之歧異，同時兼顧債權與物權間之不同屬性及適用結果上之公平性。

Since the amendment of Taiwanese Civil Code in 2007, the legislators chose to admit the obligations of the guarantors and the mortgagers are equal. However, the Civil Code did not explicitly regulate the joint and several obligations in internal relations when there are multiple guarantors and mortgagers for the purpose of securing the same claim. Sometimes one of them even has double obligations because he/she made both a guarantee contract and a mortgage contract with the creditor on the same claim. How to calculate the joint and several obligations in internal relations is an important issue. Although in 2010 the Supreme Court gave its most representative decision on the calculation method, there are scholars who urged that it should be calculated in different ways. Therefore, the article provides a brief overview of the guarantee and mortgage contracts in Taiwanese law, and it focuses on the various ways to calculate the different obligations among guarantors and mortgagers. Through the examples made in the article, it explains and compares the different calculating methods. Moreover, it tries to analyze how the decision of the Supreme Court had an effect on the judgments afterwards. This article, to my way of thinking, among the situation which there are multiple guarantors and mortgagers, all guarantors should be counted as one group, which also means one obligation, and each mortgager has one obligation. Moreover, when it comes one who has made both a guarantee contract and a mortgage contract on the same claim, the person’s obligation should be counted as two. This is a more reasonable way in order to get a fair responsibility between all guarantors and mortgagers.