论债务加入与连带责任保证的区分

On the Distinction between Debt Accession and Joint and Several Liability Guarantee

摘要: 我国《民法典》第552条首次将债务加入制度予以法定化，弥补了原《合同法》的立法空白。然而，由于债务加入与连带责任保证都表现为扩大责任财产范围、保障债权实现，且二者担保功能的相似性和当事人意思表示不明共同导致了司法实践的区分困境。从学理层面看，债务加入属于并存的债务承担，连带责任保证属于担保制度，二者在法律性质、构成要件和法律效果上都有所不同。从司法实践层面看，在当事人的意思表示不明时，首先利用文义解释对字面含义作出解释；在文义解释无果后，可根据个案中债务承诺协议所体现的法律特征判断从属性与否；若无法作出准确解释，则利用利益标准进行补充解释；在穷尽上述解释方法仍不能确定当事人真意时，方可适用“存疑推定为保证”进行兜底，从而实现对二者的有效区分。

Abstract: Article 552 of China’s Civil Code, for the first time, incorporates the system of debt assumption into legislation, addressing the previous legislative gap in the Contract Law. Nevertheless, in judicial practice, it is still challenging to distinguish debt assumption from joint and several liability guarantee, as they both expand the scope of liable assets and secure the realisation of creditors’ rights, which is further complicated by ambiguous expressions of intent from the parties. From a theoretical perspective, debt assumption is a form of concurrent debt assumption, whereas joint and several liability guarantee falls within the scope of security systems. They differ in legal nature, constituent requirements, and legal effects. In terms of judicial practice, when the parties’ expressions of intent are ambiguous, begin with textual interpretation to clarify the literal meaning. If textual interpretation fails, determine the subsidiary nature based on the legal characteristics reflected in the debt commitment agreement in specific cases. If accurate interpretation is still not possible, use the interest standard as a supplementary approach. Only when all these methods are exhausted and the parties’ true intentions cannot be determined should the “presumption of guarantee in case of doubt” be applied as a last resort to effectively distinguish between the two.