混合共同担保内部追偿权文献综述
Literature Review of Internal Recovery Right of Mixed Joint Guarantee

混合共同担保内部是否可以追偿，在理论和实践中一直都存在着极大的争论。前期立法的模糊，给追偿问题有无留存了较大的探讨空间，2020年颁布的《中华人民共和国民法典》亦未能够起到定分止争的作用。目前相关的司法解释也仅仅规定了在三种特定的情况下拥有内部追偿权，即约定追偿权、约定连带共同担保、在同一份合同上签章的情况下存在追偿权，三种特定情况之外是否可追偿仍未可知，留有较大的争论空间。因此，本文基于查阅该规则在中国的相关文献资料以及国外学者们对该问题的理论研究，梳理出该规则的理论基础和现存争议，评析其合理性与不足之处，发现学界与实务的争议焦点主要分为“内部追偿权否定说”和“内部追偿权肯定说”两大阵地，但这两大理论争议都存在以下问题：1) 一些学者陷入了“非你即我”的论证思维误区；2) 多集中于研究合理性，对具体规则如何进一步完善的相关研究不足；3) 支撑双方观点和论证的文献大多出自于“担保法时代”，“民法典时代”的相关文献较少。
Whether the mixed joint guarantee can be recovered internally has been highly controversial in theory and practice. The ambiguity of the previous legislation has left a lot of room for discussion on the issue of recovery, and the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China promulgated in 2020 has not been able to play the role of determining points and stopping disputes. At present, the relevant judicial interpretations only provide for the existence of internal recovery rights in three specific circumstances, namely, the right of recovery under agreement, the joint and several guarantees of agreement, and the existence of a right of recovery in the case of signing the same contract, and whether it is recoverable outside the three specific circumstances is still unknown, leaving a large space for debate. Therefore, in this paper, based on consulting the relevant literature of the rule in China and the theoretical research of foreign scholars on this issue, the theoretical basis and existing controversies of the rule are sorted out, and its rationality and shortcomings are evaluated, and it is found that the focus of disputes between academic circles and practice is mainly divided into two positions: “internal recovery right negation theory” and “internal recovery right affirmation theory”, but these two theoretical disputes have the following problems: 1) some scholars have fallen into the misunderstanding of “either you or me” argumentative thinking; 2) mostly focus on the rationality of research, and there is insufficient research on how to further improve specific rules; 3) most of the relevant literature supporting the views and arguments of both parties comes from the “era of guarantee law”, and there are few relevant documents in the “era of civil code”.