债务加入对保证规则的参照适用

Referential Application of Suretyship Rules to Accession to Debt

摘要: 我国《民法典》第552条确立了债务加入制度，旨在提高债权实现的可能性。不过，我国之债务加入规则仍然有边界模糊之处，导致适用不统一。应与《民法典》中的其他制度结合，方能解决司法适用中呈现的问题。基于债务加入与保证合同在作用上的一致性、部分属性上的相似性，债务加入可参照适用保证合同的部分规则，如《民法典》关于连带责任保证的一般规定和保证合同要式性规则。一般保证规定因一般保证人补充责任属性和先诉抗辩权规制与债务加入的精神不合，原则上不能适用，保证期间规则因补充性特征不得适用，其他从属性规则需要具体情况具体分析，不能一概而论。诉讼时效相关问题，原则上可以按照时效中断规则处理。

Abstract: Article 552 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China establishes the institution of accession to debt, which aims to enhance the likelihood of satisfaction of claims. However, the boundaries of China’s rules on accession to debt remain somewhat ambiguous, resulting in inconsistent application. Such rules should be integrated with other institutions in the Civil Code to resolve the issues that have emerged in judicial practice. Given the functional consistency and partial similarity in nature between accession to debt and suretyship contracts, certain rules of suretyship contracts may be applied mutatis mutandis to accession to debt, such as the general provisions on joint and several suretyship and the rules on the formality requirements for suretyship contracts under the Civil Code. The provisions on simple suretyship, however, are in principle inapplicable because the supplementary liability nature of a simple surety and the regulation of the beneficium excussionis (right of discussion) are incompatible with the spirit of accession to debt. The rules on the suretyship period cannot be applied due to their supplementary nature. Other rules concerning accessory nature must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and cannot be generalized. Issues relating to the statute of limitations may in principle be addressed by applying the rules on the interruption of the limitation period.