我国保证人抗辩权研究
摘要
保证人的抗辩权可以分为三类:保证人为一般债务人所享有的抗辩权、保证人享有的主债务人的抗辩权和保证人的专属抗辩权。本文根据此种分类方法,依照我国现行法律的规定,总结了我国现行法律关于保证人抗辩权规范的现状。针对我国关于保证人抗辩权规范的现状,本文指出了缺陷,并在此基础之上,提出了自己的完善建议。希望通过宏观和具体制度上的建议来凸显保证合同当事人间的平等性,促进保证这一担保形式的合法、合理、公平的运用,进而完善保证制度,以期达到财产快速、稳定流转的目的。
As a guarantee system of debt, guarantee had a long history since the old time. And it now was still displaying its great important function. The guarantee is the important mean to safeguard the creditor’s benefit. In the practice, the people often pays too much attention on guarantor's duty and responsibility, thus, to a certain extent, has neglected promotion of guarantor’s right and restriction of creditor. This causes the guarantor to be embarrassed at the weak trend position. The counterargument right of the guarantor is taken as a basic content of balancing the different civil subject benefit to put in the legislation, to restricting the creditor, strengthening the guarantor right protection, maintaining the balance of the benefit between main bodies of guarantee contract.
In our country, generally, the counterargument right of the guarantors mainly includes generally counterargument right and the exclusive counterargument right. However the author believed that so-called is ordinary and is exclusive is only a relative concept, its standard will be different, and so the conclusion which will obtain will also vary. In the logically coherent argument the general counterargument right, the author believed that may divide into it two kinds: guaranteed the artificial common debtor; and, the guarantor enjoys counterargument right of the main debtor. Actually, speaking of these two kinds of rights, the guarantor enjoys the main debtor also belongs specially counterargument right, but they enjoy to compare with the guarantor exclusive counterargument right, which also belonged to counterargument right generally. Therefore, the author believed that the guarantor counterargument right possibly can be divided into three kinds: counterargument right of Guarantor as the artificial common debtor, counterargument right of the guarantor as the main debtor and the guarantor’s exclusive counterargument right.
The so-called counterargument right of guarantor as artificial common debtor, is refers to the guarantor to take the contract as a debtor side, is the same with other all debtor, enjoying its achievement common debtor to counterargument right, namely the guarantor takes counterargument right which the ordinary debtor has. The author believed that the so-called guarantee artificial common debtor’s counterargument right, is mainly aims at the guarantee contract which between the guarantor and the creditor signs, that is to say, in guarantees of the contract, the guarantor, speaking of the creditor is a debtor, enjoys counterargument right which the common debtor has, but it is not in the creditor's rights debt contract guaranteed artificial that it provides the guarantee the debtor counterargument right. Counterargument right of the guaranteed the artificial common debtor has many types, this article elaborated three kinds that are quite importantly in counterargument right: the guarantee contract to counterargument right, the guarantor emphatically to guarantee that invalid the contract the cancellation counterargument right and the effectiveness counterargument right.
The guarantor exclusive counterargument right, is refers to, take the main contract debtor who decided based on the guarantee contract relative independence, which does not take the counterargument right as the premise, but obtains directly by the guarantor with resistance request of power main creditor one which enjoys specially the kind counterargument right. In our country, the guarantor exclusive counterargument right mainly to have five types :sues first counterargument right; the host contract counterargument right, guarantee period invalid counterargument right, the thing to guarantee first counterargument right and the special relief counterargument right.
Although our present "Guarantee Law" had stipulated the more complete guarantee system, gives the guarantor in the legislation many protections, this is a big progress truly, but these systems have not formed a complete system, has many deficiencies. This article believed that our country present guarantors counterargument right system existence the flaw to be possible to divide into the flaw and the concrete system's flaw into two kinds in macroscopically.
Flaws of the present guarantor counterargument right system macroscopically mainly include the flaws in legislative thought and the legislation not unified and not comprehensive. Our country legislator always protects creditor's benefit, and the legislative balance favors the creditor, thus it caused the guarantors undertake too much duty and responsibility, which is not good to arouse guarantor's enthusiasm. Moreover, in the current law, counterargument right stipulation is not very comprehensive and systematical, and it has many inconsistent places, which seriously damages the law's authority and has not favored the concrete implementation of the legal norm.
The flaws of the concrete system of Our country present guarantors counterargument right mainly include four kinds: flaws in sending a peremptory notice counterargument right, the estimation joint liability's flaw, the responsibility flaw when the thing guaranteed and guarantee coexisting and sue first counterargument right .Because our "Guarantee Law" stresses to the creditor creditor's rights protection and emphasis the guarantee responsibility joint, the result has not sent a peremptory notice to confirm the guarantor counterargument right, which causes guarantor's this right to become a blank in the legislation. Our "Guarantee Law" takes the joint liability the general guarantee responsibility the system designs to be without doubt advantageous to the creditor and the debtor, is disadvantageous to the guarantor, and has the obvious malpractice. Our "Guarantee Law" has not concrete provision, when the guarantee and the security interest also exist, the creditor has not given up the security interest the benefit, when actually first requests the guarantor undertakes the responsibility, the guarantor whether has counterargument right. Current legislation“property of the main debtor will not have paid off its debt to include insufficient”limits the guarantor to exercise sues first contradicts the power the legal situation.
Contradicted the power system existence in view of our country present guarantors the flaw, the author proposed consummated the suggestion. Macroscopically, the author in view of the legislative thought's flaw, through to "Guarantee Law" 30th with "Guarantee Law Explanation" the 7th analysis and the suggestion, proposed oneself consummate mentality. In view of the legislation in not unified, not the comprehensive flaw, the author put forward two proposals: First, sets up the guarantor to counterargument right chapter, is clear about each stipulation; Secondly, unification legislation. counterargument right concrete system's flaw in view of our country present guarantors, here the author put forward some proposal: First, our country should additionally build the guarantor to send a peremptory notice counterargument right; Secondly, when the agreement or the agreement are unclear guaranteed that the way should estimate is the general guarantee; Thirdly, the thing guarantees with guarantee coexisting when should be clear about the responsibility to share; Fourthly,“property of the main debtor pays off its debt should insufficient”to include limits the guarantor to exercise sues first counterargument right the legal situation.
As a guarantee system of debt, guarantee had a long history since the old time. And it now was still displaying its great important function. The guarantee is the important mean to safeguard the creditor’s benefit. In the practice, the people often pays too much attention on guarantor's duty and responsibility, thus, to a certain extent, has neglected promotion of guarantor’s right and restriction of creditor. This causes the guarantor to be embarrassed at the weak trend position. The counterargument right of the guarantor is taken as a basic content of balancing the different civil subject benefit to put in the legislation, to restricting the creditor, strengthening the guarantor right protection, maintaining the balance of the benefit between main bodies of guarantee contract.
In our country, generally, the counterargument right of the guarantors mainly includes generally counterargument right and the exclusive counterargument right. However the author believed that so-called is ordinary and is exclusive is only a relative concept, its standard will be different, and so the conclusion which will obtain will also vary. In the logically coherent argument the general counterargument right, the author believed that may divide into it two kinds: guaranteed the artificial common debtor; and, the guarantor enjoys counterargument right of the main debtor. Actually, speaking of these two kinds of rights, the guarantor enjoys the main debtor also belongs specially counterargument right, but they enjoy to compare with the guarantor exclusive counterargument right, which also belonged to counterargument right generally. Therefore, the author believed that the guarantor counterargument right possibly can be divided into three kinds: counterargument right of Guarantor as the artificial common debtor, counterargument right of the guarantor as the main debtor and the guarantor’s exclusive counterargument right.
The so-called counterargument right of guarantor as artificial common debtor, is refers to the guarantor to take the contract as a debtor side, is the same with other all debtor, enjoying its achievement common debtor to counterargument right, namely the guarantor takes counterargument right which the ordinary debtor has. The author believed that the so-called guarantee artificial common debtor’s counterargument right, is mainly aims at the guarantee contract which between the guarantor and the creditor signs, that is to say, in guarantees of the contract, the guarantor, speaking of the creditor is a debtor, enjoys counterargument right which the common debtor has, but it is not in the creditor's rights debt contract guaranteed artificial that it provides the guarantee the debtor counterargument right. Counterargument right of the guaranteed the artificial common debtor has many types, this article elaborated three kinds that are quite importantly in counterargument right: the guarantee contract to counterargument right, the guarantor emphatically to guarantee that invalid the contract the cancellation counterargument right and the effectiveness counterargument right.
The guarantor exclusive counterargument right, is refers to, take the main contract debtor who decided based on the guarantee contract relative independence, which does not take the counterargument right as the premise, but obtains directly by the guarantor with resistance request of power main creditor one which enjoys specially the kind counterargument right. In our country, the guarantor exclusive counterargument right mainly to have five types :sues first counterargument right; the host contract counterargument right, guarantee period invalid counterargument right, the thing to guarantee first counterargument right and the special relief counterargument right.
Although our present "Guarantee Law" had stipulated the more complete guarantee system, gives the guarantor in the legislation many protections, this is a big progress truly, but these systems have not formed a complete system, has many deficiencies. This article believed that our country present guarantors counterargument right system existence the flaw to be possible to divide into the flaw and the concrete system's flaw into two kinds in macroscopically.
Flaws of the present guarantor counterargument right system macroscopically mainly include the flaws in legislative thought and the legislation not unified and not comprehensive. Our country legislator always protects creditor's benefit, and the legislative balance favors the creditor, thus it caused the guarantors undertake too much duty and responsibility, which is not good to arouse guarantor's enthusiasm. Moreover, in the current law, counterargument right stipulation is not very comprehensive and systematical, and it has many inconsistent places, which seriously damages the law's authority and has not favored the concrete implementation of the legal norm.
The flaws of the concrete system of Our country present guarantors counterargument right mainly include four kinds: flaws in sending a peremptory notice counterargument right, the estimation joint liability's flaw, the responsibility flaw when the thing guaranteed and guarantee coexisting and sue first counterargument right .Because our "Guarantee Law" stresses to the creditor creditor's rights protection and emphasis the guarantee responsibility joint, the result has not sent a peremptory notice to confirm the guarantor counterargument right, which causes guarantor's this right to become a blank in the legislation. Our "Guarantee Law" takes the joint liability the general guarantee responsibility the system designs to be without doubt advantageous to the creditor and the debtor, is disadvantageous to the guarantor, and has the obvious malpractice. Our "Guarantee Law" has not concrete provision, when the guarantee and the security interest also exist, the creditor has not given up the security interest the benefit, when actually first requests the guarantor undertakes the responsibility, the guarantor whether has counterargument right. Current legislation“property of the main debtor will not have paid off its debt to include insufficient”limits the guarantor to exercise sues first contradicts the power the legal situation.
Contradicted the power system existence in view of our country present guarantors the flaw, the author proposed consummated the suggestion. Macroscopically, the author in view of the legislative thought's flaw, through to "Guarantee Law" 30th with "Guarantee Law Explanation" the 7th analysis and the suggestion, proposed oneself consummate mentality. In view of the legislation in not unified, not the comprehensive flaw, the author put forward two proposals: First, sets up the guarantor to counterargument right chapter, is clear about each stipulation; Secondly, unification legislation. counterargument right concrete system's flaw in view of our country present guarantors, here the author put forward some proposal: First, our country should additionally build the guarantor to send a peremptory notice counterargument right; Secondly, when the agreement or the agreement are unclear guaranteed that the way should estimate is the general guarantee; Thirdly, the thing guarantees with guarantee coexisting when should be clear about the responsibility to share; Fourthly,“property of the main debtor pays off its debt should insufficient”to include limits the guarantor to exercise sues first counterargument right the legal situation.
引文
1.参见郭明瑞:《担保法》(第二版),法律出版社 2004 年第 1 版,第 26页。
2.参见王利明:《民法总则研究》,中国人民大学出版社 2003 年第 1 版,第 219 页。
3.参见洪逊欣:《中国民法总则》,三民书局 1992 年第 1 版,第 57 页。
4.参见[古罗马]查士丁尼:《法学总论》,张企泰译,商务印书馆 1989 年第 1 版,第 229 页。
5.参见王进轩:《论保证人的抗辩权》,《兰州商学院学报》2003 年第 2期,第 79 页。
6.参见王进轩:《论保证人的抗辩权》,《兰州商学院学报》2003 年第 2期,第 79、80 页。
7.参见陈本寒主编:《担保法通论》,武汉大学出版社 1998 年第 1 版,第89 页。
8.参见房绍坤、李晓安:《担保司法解释的规则创新与理论不足(一)》,《判解研究》2002 年第 2 辑,人民法院出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 27页。
9.邱聪智先生认为,先诉抗辩权容易引起误解,应改为先索抗辩权。因为主债务人债务不履行时,债权人并非不得对主债务人及保证人同时起诉,且,如其起诉表明先对主债务人之财产为强制执行,于法当属可行,法院亦应据此而裁判,称之为先诉抗辩权,有用语不符语言明确之虞。而检索抗辩权,其意义较为深奥,“检”似寓指检察官提起公诉、担当自诉,并藉以表明起诉之意;“索”,当指强制执行而言。如是,其一方面有先诉抗辩权语义未明的缺陷,另一方面已不足以充分表征先行执行的含义。参见邱聪智:《新订债法各论》(下),元照出版有限公司 2003 年第 1 版,第 521 页。
10.乌尔比安在其作品中分析:“法(ius) 严自于‘正义(iustitia) ’。实际上,正如杰尔苏所巧妙定义的那样,法是善良和公正的艺术”(参阅:D. 1 ,1 ,1pr)。转引自费安玲:《论保证人抗辩权》,《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2000 年第 1 期,第 15 页。
11.转引自费安玲:《论保证人抗辩权》,《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2000 年第 1 期,第 15 页。
12.参见郭明瑞:《担保法》(第二版),法律出版社 2004 年第 1 版,第46 页。
13.参见[意]彼得罗·彭梵得:《罗马法教科书》,黄风译,中国政法大学出版社 1992 年第 1 版,第 339 页。
14.参阅《法国民法典》第 2038 条:“债权人同意接受不动产或某种动产抵偿其债权时,保证人即免除责任,即使日后债权人接受的财产被追夺时,亦同。”《德国民法典》第 776 条:“债权人放弃与债权有关的优先权、为债权而存在的抵押权或船舶抵押权、质权或对共同保证人的权利的,保证人在其放弃的权利依第 774 条将取得偿还的限度内,免除责任。即使放弃的权利是在承担保证后才发生的,仍适用此规定。”《意大利民法典》第 1955 条:“当因债权人的行为使保证人的代偿在债权人的质权、抵押权及先取特权中没有效力时,保证消灭。”
15.我国《担保法》未明确规定保证人的催告抗辩权,但我国的司法解释上是承认催告抗辩权的。最高人民法院《关于审理经济合同纠纷案件有关保证的若干问题的规定》(院发[1994]8 号文)第 7 条规定:“保证合同明确约定保证人承担代为履行责任的,经债权人请求被保证人履行合同,被保证人拒不履行时,债权人可请求保证人履行。保证人不能代为履行合同,且强制执行被保证人的财产仍不足以清偿其债务的,由保证人承担赔偿责任。”这里就规定了保证人的催告抗辩权。因为依此规定,保证人承担代为履行责任的,债权人请求保证人履行时,应先请求主债务人履行。如债权人未先请求主债务人履行且主债务人拒绝履行时,债权人不可以请求保证人代为履行。
16.参见邓曾甲:《中日担保法律制度比较》,法律出版社 1999 年第 1 版,第 94、95、123 页。
17.参见郑玉波:《民法债权各论》(下),台湾三民书局 1981 年第 6 版,第 822 页。
1.张平华、景朝阳:《论保证人的抗辩权》,《中国社会科学院研究生学报》2006 年第 5 期。
2.魏淑君:《谈保证人的抗辩权》,《政法论丛》2001 年第 6 期。
3.程希彦:《保证人保证期间抗辩权初探》,《河南财政税务高等专科学校学报》2001 年第 3 期。
4.李光曼、熊进光:《论保证人的专属抗辩权》,《南昌大学学报》1999年第 1 期。
5.孙学致:《保证人权利若干问题解析》,《当代法学》2002 年第 5 期。
6.邹国华:《保证人抗辩权的司法适用与立法完善》,《法学》1998 年第 4 期。
7.郭龙:《试论保证人的权利》,《兰州交通大学学报》2006 年第 2 期。
8.费安玲:《论保证人抗辩权》,《政法论坛》2000 年第 1 期。
9.曹诗权:《保证人之专属抗辩权初探》,《河北法学》1998 年第 4 期。
10.房绍坤、李晓安:《担保司法解释的规则创新与理论不足(一)》,《判解研究》2002 年第 2 辑。
11.胡小平:《析保证人的先诉抗辩权》,《人民司法》1994 年第 8 期。
12.曹诗权、梅顺建:《论保证人享有的债务人之抗辩权》,《律师世界》1997 年第 9 期。
13.邹大有:《保证人权利探讨》,《科技创业》2007 年第 3 期。
14.涂晓军:《保证人抗辩权制度应当完善的四个方面》,《咸宁学院学报》2006 年第 4 期。
15.王进轩:《论保证人的抗辩权》,《兰州商学院学报》2003 年第 2 期。
16.曹诗权、覃怡:《论保证人的抗辩权》,《中外法学》1998 年第 1 期。
1.梅仲协:《民法要义》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年修订版。
2.史尚宽:《债法各论》,中国政法大学出版社 2000 年第 1 版。
3.周枏:《罗马法原论》,商务印书馆 1994 年第 1 版。
4.黄立主编:《民法债编各论》(下),中国政法大学出版社 2003 年第 1版。
5.郑玉波:《民法债编总论》(修订二版),中国政法大学出版社 2004 年修订第 2 版。
6.林诚二:《民法债编各论》(下),瑞兴图书股份有限公司 2002 年版。
7.邱聪智:《新订债法各论》(下),元照出版有限公司 2003 年第 1 版。
8.孔祥俊主编:《担保法例解与适用》,人民法院出版社 1996 年第 1 版。
9.[古罗马]查士丁尼:《法学总论》,张企泰译,商务印书馆 1989 年第 1 版。
10.[古罗马]盖尤斯:《法学阶梯》,中国政法大学出版社 1996 年第 1 版。
11.[德]卡尔·拉伦茨:《德国民法通论》,王晓晔等译,法律出版社 2003年第 1 版。
12.王泽鉴:《民法概要》,中国政法大学出版社 2003 年第 1 版。
13.王泽鉴:《法律思维与民法实例》,中国政法大学出版社 2001 年第 1版。
14.洪逊欣:《中国民法总则》,三民书局 1992 年第 1 版。
15.王利明:《民法总则研究》,中国人民大学出版社 2003 年第 1 版。
16.史尚宽:《民法总论》,中国政法大学出版社 2000 年第 1 版。
17.沈达明:《法国/德国担保法》,中国法制出版社 2000 年第 1 版。
18.江平、张佩霖编著:《民法教程》,中国政法大学出版社 1986 年第 1版。
19.邓曾甲:《中日担保法律制度比较》,法律出版社 1999 年第 1 版。
20.[意]彼得罗·彭梵得:《罗马法教科书》,黄风译,中国政法大学出版社 1992 年第 1 版。
21.郭明瑞:《担保法》(第二版),法律出版社 2004 年第 1 版。
22.费安玲主编:《比较担保法》中国政法大学出版社 2004 年第 1 版。
2.参见王利明:《民法总则研究》,中国人民大学出版社 2003 年第 1 版,第 219 页。
3.参见洪逊欣:《中国民法总则》,三民书局 1992 年第 1 版,第 57 页。
4.参见[古罗马]查士丁尼:《法学总论》,张企泰译,商务印书馆 1989 年第 1 版,第 229 页。
5.参见王进轩:《论保证人的抗辩权》,《兰州商学院学报》2003 年第 2期,第 79 页。
6.参见王进轩:《论保证人的抗辩权》,《兰州商学院学报》2003 年第 2期,第 79、80 页。
7.参见陈本寒主编:《担保法通论》,武汉大学出版社 1998 年第 1 版,第89 页。
8.参见房绍坤、李晓安:《担保司法解释的规则创新与理论不足(一)》,《判解研究》2002 年第 2 辑,人民法院出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 27页。
9.邱聪智先生认为,先诉抗辩权容易引起误解,应改为先索抗辩权。因为主债务人债务不履行时,债权人并非不得对主债务人及保证人同时起诉,且,如其起诉表明先对主债务人之财产为强制执行,于法当属可行,法院亦应据此而裁判,称之为先诉抗辩权,有用语不符语言明确之虞。而检索抗辩权,其意义较为深奥,“检”似寓指检察官提起公诉、担当自诉,并藉以表明起诉之意;“索”,当指强制执行而言。如是,其一方面有先诉抗辩权语义未明的缺陷,另一方面已不足以充分表征先行执行的含义。参见邱聪智:《新订债法各论》(下),元照出版有限公司 2003 年第 1 版,第 521 页。
10.乌尔比安在其作品中分析:“法(ius) 严自于‘正义(iustitia) ’。实际上,正如杰尔苏所巧妙定义的那样,法是善良和公正的艺术”(参阅:D. 1 ,1 ,1pr)。转引自费安玲:《论保证人抗辩权》,《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2000 年第 1 期,第 15 页。
11.转引自费安玲:《论保证人抗辩权》,《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2000 年第 1 期,第 15 页。
12.参见郭明瑞:《担保法》(第二版),法律出版社 2004 年第 1 版,第46 页。
13.参见[意]彼得罗·彭梵得:《罗马法教科书》,黄风译,中国政法大学出版社 1992 年第 1 版,第 339 页。
14.参阅《法国民法典》第 2038 条:“债权人同意接受不动产或某种动产抵偿其债权时,保证人即免除责任,即使日后债权人接受的财产被追夺时,亦同。”《德国民法典》第 776 条:“债权人放弃与债权有关的优先权、为债权而存在的抵押权或船舶抵押权、质权或对共同保证人的权利的,保证人在其放弃的权利依第 774 条将取得偿还的限度内,免除责任。即使放弃的权利是在承担保证后才发生的,仍适用此规定。”《意大利民法典》第 1955 条:“当因债权人的行为使保证人的代偿在债权人的质权、抵押权及先取特权中没有效力时,保证消灭。”
15.我国《担保法》未明确规定保证人的催告抗辩权,但我国的司法解释上是承认催告抗辩权的。最高人民法院《关于审理经济合同纠纷案件有关保证的若干问题的规定》(院发[1994]8 号文)第 7 条规定:“保证合同明确约定保证人承担代为履行责任的,经债权人请求被保证人履行合同,被保证人拒不履行时,债权人可请求保证人履行。保证人不能代为履行合同,且强制执行被保证人的财产仍不足以清偿其债务的,由保证人承担赔偿责任。”这里就规定了保证人的催告抗辩权。因为依此规定,保证人承担代为履行责任的,债权人请求保证人履行时,应先请求主债务人履行。如债权人未先请求主债务人履行且主债务人拒绝履行时,债权人不可以请求保证人代为履行。
16.参见邓曾甲:《中日担保法律制度比较》,法律出版社 1999 年第 1 版,第 94、95、123 页。
17.参见郑玉波:《民法债权各论》(下),台湾三民书局 1981 年第 6 版,第 822 页。
1.张平华、景朝阳:《论保证人的抗辩权》,《中国社会科学院研究生学报》2006 年第 5 期。
2.魏淑君:《谈保证人的抗辩权》,《政法论丛》2001 年第 6 期。
3.程希彦:《保证人保证期间抗辩权初探》,《河南财政税务高等专科学校学报》2001 年第 3 期。
4.李光曼、熊进光:《论保证人的专属抗辩权》,《南昌大学学报》1999年第 1 期。
5.孙学致:《保证人权利若干问题解析》,《当代法学》2002 年第 5 期。
6.邹国华:《保证人抗辩权的司法适用与立法完善》,《法学》1998 年第 4 期。
7.郭龙:《试论保证人的权利》,《兰州交通大学学报》2006 年第 2 期。
8.费安玲:《论保证人抗辩权》,《政法论坛》2000 年第 1 期。
9.曹诗权:《保证人之专属抗辩权初探》,《河北法学》1998 年第 4 期。
10.房绍坤、李晓安:《担保司法解释的规则创新与理论不足(一)》,《判解研究》2002 年第 2 辑。
11.胡小平:《析保证人的先诉抗辩权》,《人民司法》1994 年第 8 期。
12.曹诗权、梅顺建:《论保证人享有的债务人之抗辩权》,《律师世界》1997 年第 9 期。
13.邹大有:《保证人权利探讨》,《科技创业》2007 年第 3 期。
14.涂晓军:《保证人抗辩权制度应当完善的四个方面》,《咸宁学院学报》2006 年第 4 期。
15.王进轩:《论保证人的抗辩权》,《兰州商学院学报》2003 年第 2 期。
16.曹诗权、覃怡:《论保证人的抗辩权》,《中外法学》1998 年第 1 期。
1.梅仲协:《民法要义》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年修订版。
2.史尚宽:《债法各论》,中国政法大学出版社 2000 年第 1 版。
3.周枏:《罗马法原论》,商务印书馆 1994 年第 1 版。
4.黄立主编:《民法债编各论》(下),中国政法大学出版社 2003 年第 1版。
5.郑玉波:《民法债编总论》(修订二版),中国政法大学出版社 2004 年修订第 2 版。
6.林诚二:《民法债编各论》(下),瑞兴图书股份有限公司 2002 年版。
7.邱聪智:《新订债法各论》(下),元照出版有限公司 2003 年第 1 版。
8.孔祥俊主编:《担保法例解与适用》,人民法院出版社 1996 年第 1 版。
9.[古罗马]查士丁尼:《法学总论》,张企泰译,商务印书馆 1989 年第 1 版。
10.[古罗马]盖尤斯:《法学阶梯》,中国政法大学出版社 1996 年第 1 版。
11.[德]卡尔·拉伦茨:《德国民法通论》,王晓晔等译,法律出版社 2003年第 1 版。
12.王泽鉴:《民法概要》,中国政法大学出版社 2003 年第 1 版。
13.王泽鉴:《法律思维与民法实例》,中国政法大学出版社 2001 年第 1版。
14.洪逊欣:《中国民法总则》,三民书局 1992 年第 1 版。
15.王利明:《民法总则研究》,中国人民大学出版社 2003 年第 1 版。
16.史尚宽:《民法总论》,中国政法大学出版社 2000 年第 1 版。
17.沈达明:《法国/德国担保法》,中国法制出版社 2000 年第 1 版。
18.江平、张佩霖编著:《民法教程》,中国政法大学出版社 1986 年第 1版。
19.邓曾甲:《中日担保法律制度比较》,法律出版社 1999 年第 1 版。
20.[意]彼得罗·彭梵得:《罗马法教科书》,黄风译,中国政法大学出版社 1992 年第 1 版。
21.郭明瑞:《担保法》(第二版),法律出版社 2004 年第 1 版。
22.费安玲主编:《比较担保法》中国政法大学出版社 2004 年第 1 版。