Study On The Criteria For Distinguishing Between Debt Addition And Guarantee

Before the implementation of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China(hereinafter referred to as the "Civil Code"),the debt accession system was only presented as a doctrinal concept,and with the extensive use of judicial practice,the Civil Code responded to this.Article 552 of China’s Civil Code establishes this system in the form of legislation for the first time,clarifying the form of debt joining,but does not give a specific response to the distinction between the debt accession system and the guarantee that is the key and difficult point in judicial practice.Therefore,through the typological study of the distinguishing standards of debt accession and guarantee,in order to unify the judicial application of debt accession and guarantee in the context of the era of the Civil Code,so as to provide effective reference for judicial practice and enable courts to achieve the same case and judgment.It is precisely because of the similarity between debt participation and the guarantee system in specific aspects,the ambiguity of the expression of intention between the parties,and the characteristics that the two can coexist,that the criteria for distinguishing the two in judicial practice are not clear,and there are differences in the application of judicial practice.However,the law establishes them as two different legal systems,each with its own institutional characteristics and very different effects,so it is necessary to sort out the two.In order to accurately analyze the difficulties in judicial application,taking the effective time limit of the Civil Code as the time limit,the judgment documents after the effective date are counted and screened,and the reasons for the identification of debt addition and guarantee in judicial practice are studied on this basis,and the existing problems in practice are summarized.At the same time,a typological analysis is carried out on the differences between different judgments and judgments in the same case,so as to understand the factors considered in practice when to add debt and when to guarantee.The proposal to construct the criteria for distinguishing between debt addition and guarantee on the basis of differences in judicial determinations hopes to help judges solve the difficult problem of distinction.Establish the general principle of distinguishing the two from a macroscopic perspective,first take the expression of meaning as the premise of interpretation path,and when the expression of meaning fails,enter the second occasion of the presumption of doubt,supplemented by the presumption of doubt as the guarantee rule.Refining specific rules on the basis of general principles and clarifying the criteria for distinguishing between debt accession and guarantee can not only better understand the debt joining system,but also provide useful ideas for judges in the process of adjudicating cases,reduce the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case in practice to a certain extent,and unify the adjudication standards of judicial practice on this issue,Enhance judicial credibility.The paper will elaborate in five parts: first,through the introduction of typical cases,the problem of the paper needs to be studied,that is,the problem of distinguishing between debt accession and guarantee,and secondly,from the system itself,the causes of the obstacles to the distinction between debt accession and guarantee system,and the embodiment of the difference between debt accession and guarantee system.Then,the cases in judicial practice are empirically investigated,and the dilemma of various judgments in practical application is statistically analyzed.Thirdly,on the basis of empirical analysis,the people’s court analyzes the divergence points between debt addition and guarantee by type,screens out the cases in which the court takes the determination of debt addition and guarantee as the focus of the dispute,and sorts out the difficulties,focal points and divergence points in the current individual trial process based on the comparison of the people’s court’s judgment reasons and judgment results.Finally,it is a perfect idea for the court to distinguish between debt addition and guarantee in the trial of specific cases.