(Adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court at its No.1133 Conference on September 29, 2000)
For the purpose of ensuring the correct application of the Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "the Guarantee Law"), based on the judicial practice and experience, the following interpretations have been made concerning the application of laws while the people's courts are handling the guarantee disputes .
Part IInterpretation of General Principles
Article 1A guarantee created by the parties for the creditor's rights arising from civil relations may be considered valid if it conforms to the forms stipulated in the Guarantee law and does not violate any compulsory provision in laws and regulations.
Article 2Counter-guarantee provider may be the debtor or some other parties.
The form of counter-guarantee may be mortgage or pledge offered by the debtor, or guarantee, mortgage or pledge offered by some other parties.
Article 3Where any state organ or any institution, social organization for the public good violates laws to provide guarantee, the guarantee contract shall be invalid. And it shall be punished pursuant to Article 5 (2) of the Guarantee Law if any loss is caused to the creditors.
Article 4Where any director or manager violates Article 60 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China to provide guarantee for the debt of the company's shareholders or other persons, the guarantee contract shall be invalid. The debtor and the guarantee provider shall bear joint compensation liability for creditor's loss unless the creditor knows or should know about the fact.
Article 5Where a guarantee is created with the property that is prohibited by laws and regulations from circulating, or is not transferable, the guarantee contract shall be invalid.
Where a guarantee is created with the property restricted by laws and regulations from circulating, the people's court shall dispose of the property to realize the creditor's rights in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.
Article 6The foreign guarantee contract shall be invalid under any of the following circumstances:
1. a foreign guarantee is provided without the approval or registration by relevant competent departments;
2. the guarantee is provided to domestic creditors for oversea organs without approval or registration by relevant competent departments;
3. the guarantee is offered to secure the registered capital of a foreign-invested enterprise or the foreign party's external debt of its investment in a
foreign-invested enterprise;
4. a foreign exchange guarantee is provided by a financial organ whose business scope does not include foreign exchange guarantees, or by a non-financial enterprise legal person without foreign exchange income;
5. the guarantee provider will not bear any responsibility if the principal contract is altered or the creditor transfers the right of a foreign guarantee contract without consent of the guarantee provider or approval of relevant competent departments, unless it is otherwise provided by in laws and regulations.
Article 7The guarantee provider and the debtor shall assume joint compensation liability for the creditor's loss on the condition that the principal contract is valid while the guarantee contract is invalid and the creditor is not in fault. If the creditor and the guarantee provider are both in fault, the civil liability that the guarantee provider should assume shall not exceed half of that that the debtor can't pay off.
Article 8If the guarantee contract is invalid due to the invalidity of the principal contract and the guarantee provider is not in fault, he shall not assume any civil obligation. If the guarantee provider is in fault, he shall bear not more than one third of the obligation that can't be fulfilled by the debtor.
Article 9The guarantee provider may have recourse against the debtor after assuming compensation liability to the creditor in the case of invalid guarantee contract.
The guarantee provider may also require the counter-guarantee provider in fault to bear the liability within the compensation scope.
The guarantee provider may bring a lawsuit against the debtor or the
counter-guarantee provider on the basis of the fact that the compensation has been made.
Article 10After termination of the principal contract, the guarantee provider shall still be liable to the debtor for the latter's civil obligation unless it is otherwise stipulated by the guarantee contract.
Article 11The act of concluding a guarantee contract by the legal representative or person in charge of a judicial person or other organizations beyond their purview of authorization shall be valid, except when the counter party knows or should know about such fact.
Article 12The period of guarantee agreed upon by the parties or required by registration departments shall not have legal binding force on the continuity of the guarantee.
Within two years after the limitation of action for a creditor's secured right expires, the people's court shall support the creditor's exercise of his guarantee right.
Part IIInterpretation of Guarantee
Article 13Where a guarantee contract reads that the guarantee provider shall fulfill the non-monetary obligation and the guarantee provider fails to do so actually, he shall compensate the creditor for the consequent loss.
Article 14Where any legal person, any other organization or natural person without complete solvency concludes any guarantee contract as a guarantee provider, and then pleads to be exempted from guarantee liability for their lack of solvency, such pleadings shall not be supported by the people's court.
Article 15Other organizations provided in Article 7 of Guarantee law mainly include:
1. independently-invested and partnership enterprises, which have legally registered and drawn business licenses;
2. jointly-operated enterprises with legal registration and business licenses;
3. Sino-foreign cooperative joint ventures with legal registration and business licenses;
4. social organizations approved and registered by civil administration departments;
5. enterprises owned by townships, subdistricts and villages with legal registration and business licenses;
Article 16The guarantee contracts concluded by operating institutions or social organizations as the guarantee providers shall be deemed as valid, if there is no reason for invalidity of the contract.
Article 17Where the guarantee is provided for by a branch of an enterprise legal person without authorization in written form by such legal person, the guarantee contract shall be invalid. And the consequent loss of the creditor shall be compensated for according to Article 5 (2) of the Guarantee Law.
When providing guarantee with written authorization by the enterprise legal person, if the scope of authorization is not clear, the branch of the enterprise legal person shall assume the whole liabilities for the debt agreed upon in the guarantee contract.
If the guarantee liability exceeds the amount of the property of the branch, the enterprise legal person shall assume the civil obligation.
Where the guarantee provided by the branch becomes invalid and the branch shall assume the compensation liability, the compensation shall be made with the property under the administration of the branch. If the enterprise legal person is in fault, Article 29 of the Guarantee Law shall apply.
Article 18If the guarantee is offered by function departments of an enterprise legal person, the guarantee contract shall be invalid. The creditor shall bear consequent loss if he knows or should know that the guarantee provider is a functional department of an enterprise legal person.
If the creditor is not aware that the guarantee provider is a functional department of an enterprise legal person, the consequent loss may be dealt with according to Article 5(2) and Article 29 of the Guarantee Law.
Article 19Where two or more guarantee providers secure the same debt simultaneously or respectively but the guarantee providers and the creditor have not agreed on the guarantee shares, such guarantee shall be deemed as joint guarantee.
Where the joint guarantee providers antagonize the creditor with their internal agreement of guarantee shares, such defense shall not be supported by the people's court.
Article 20If the debtor of a joint guarantee fails to fulfill his liability upon the termination of term for performance as written in the principal contract, the creditor may require the debtor to fulfill his liability or require any of the guarantee providers to bear the entire guarantee responsibility.
After undertaking the guarantee responsibility, the joint guarantee providers may divide the portion that is unrecoverable from the debtor according to the proportions agreed upon internally. If no such proportions are agreed upon, this portion shall be divided equally.
Article 21The joint guarantee providers by shares shall be entitled to claim repayment from the debtor within the purview of responsibly guarantee after fulfilling their own shares of guarantee liabilities as agreed upon in the guarantee contract.
Article 22Where the creditor accepts, without objection, a written guarantee that is unilaterally provided by a third party, the guarantee contract shall be regarded as valid.
Where the guarantee provider signs or stamps on the principal contract without guarantee items in it as a guarantee provider, the guarantee contract shall be regarded as valid.
Article 23After confirming the uncertain creditor's rights in a contract of a guarantee up to a maximum amount, the guarantee provider shall assume responsibility within the maximum amount for the continuous obligations arising in a specific period.
Article 24Where the general guarantee provider offers authentic information to the creditor concerning the debtor's property that is eligible for execution at the expiration of term for obligation performance in a principal contract, but the
creditor gives up or neglects the right and causes the failure of execution on this property, the guarantee provider may require the court to exempt him from guarantee liability within the actual value scope of the above property.
Article 25The major difficulties for the creditor to require the debtor to perform the liabilities stipulated in Section A of Article 17 (3) include: unknown whereabouts, emigration of the debtor or no property of the debtor to be executed.
Article 26Where the third party guarantees for the creditor to supervise the special purpose of a special fund, he will be free from liabilities after performance of the above obligation. If the third party defaults and results in capital loss, he shall bear supplementary compensation responsibility for the lost capital.
Article 27Where the guarantee provider assures the debtor's registered capital and the debtor's actual investment does not accord with the registered capital, or the debtor withdraws and transfers the registered capital, the guarantee provider shall assume the joint guarantee liability within the scope of the insufficient capital or transferred capital.
Article 28When the creditor lawfully transfers his principal rights of a creditor to a third party during the period of guarantee, the guarantee rights of a creditor shall be transferred simultaneously and the guarantee provider shall fulfill his guarantee liability for the transferee in the original scope of the guarantee. The guarantee provider shall be exempted from guarantee responsibilities if it is agreed by the guarantee provider and the creditor that the guarantee is provided only to specific creditor or the credit is not transferable.
Article 29Where the creditor allows the debtor to transfer part of his debt without written consent of the guarantee provider during the period of guarantee, the guarantee provider will not bear any liability for that transferred part of the debt, while he is still responsible for the remaining part of the debt.
Article 30Where during the term of guarantee, the creditor and the debtor alter the quantity, price, kind of currency, interest rate and etc. in the principal contract without consent of the guarantee provider, and reduces the debtor's obligation, the guarantee provider shall still bear the guarantee liability in the altered contract; if the alteration increases the debtor's obligation, the guarantee provider will not be liable for the increased part.
If the creditor and debtor alter the performance duration of the principal contract without written consent of the guarantee provider, the guarantee duration shall remain unchanged or shall be the statutory duration.
The guarantee provider shall still bear the guarantee liability if the creditor and debtor agree to alter content of principal contract but have not performed accordingly.
Article 31The term of guarantee shall not be suspended, discontinued or extended under any circumstances.
Article 32The guarantee term stipulated in a guarantee contract, which is earlier than or the same as the performance term of the principal debt, shall be deemed as not stipulated. The guarantee term shall be six months as of the expiration date of the term for performance of the principal obligation.
If It will be considered as an unclear provision if the guarantee contract stipulates that the guarantee provider shall bear the guarantee liability until the principal amount and interest for the principal debt have been paid. The guarantee term shall be two years as of the expiration date of the term for performance of the principal obligation.
Article 33Where there is no stipulation or no clear stipulation in the principal contract concerning the performance term of the principal debt, the term of guarantee shall be calculated as of the expiration date of the grace period for the debtor to fulfill his obligation.
Article 34Where the creditor of a general guarantee lodges a complaint or applies for arbitration against the debtor before the expiration of the guarantee term, the limitation of action for the guarantee contract shall be calculated from the effective date of verdict or arbitration award.
When the creditor of a joint liability guarantee requires the guarantee provider to assume liability before the expiration date of the guarantee term, the limitation of action for the guarantee contract shall be calculated from the date of the creditor's requirement.
Article 35Where the guarantee provider assumes guarantee liability or provides guarantee for the debt that has exceeded the limitation of action, and makes
deraignment on the basis that such liability has exceeded the limitation of action, the people's court shall not support him.
Article 36In general guarantees, the limitation of action for guarantee debts will intermit when that of principal debts does. In joint liability guarantees, the limitation of action for guarantee debts will not intermit when that of the principal debts does.
In both general and joint liability guarantees, the limitation of action for guarantee debts will pause when that of the principal debts does.
Article 37Where there is no stipulation or no clear stipulation concerning the guarantee term in the contract of guarantee up to a maximum amount, and the term for the guarantee provider to pay debts is written in the contract, the guarantee term shall be six months from the expiration date of the term for the guarantee provider to pay the debts. If the term for payment of debts is not stipulated in the contract, the guarantee term shall be six months from the termination of the guarantee up to the maximum amount, or six months from the date of the creditor's receiving of the guarantee provider's written notice on terminating the guarantee contract.
Article 38Where the same right of a creditor are assured by both a guarantee and a property guarantee of a third party, the creditor may require the guarantee provider or such third party to perform obligation. Where there is no stipulation or no clear stipulation by the parties concerning the scope of guarantee or property guarantee, the guarantee provider who has fulfilled the liability may have recourse against the debtor or have the right to require the other guarantee providers to answer for their shares.
Where the same right of a creditor is assured by both a guarantee and property guarantee, and the guarantee contract of property is proved invalid or rescinded, or the property is lost due to force majeure and no substitute is available, the guarantee provider shall still assume liability as stipulated by contract or by law.
Where the creditor fails to exercise the property guarantee after expiration of the performance term for principal contract, which thus results in depreciation, damage or loss of the guarantee property, the creditor shall be deemed to give up part or
entire of the property guarantee . The guarantee provider will be mitigated or exempted from the guarantee liability for the rights are given up by such creditor.
Article 39Where the parties of the principal contract agree to repay an old loan with a new loan, the guarantee provider will not bear civil liability except when he knows or should know about this.
The above provision shall not apply where the same guarantee provider secures these two loans.
Article 40Where the debtor of principal contract makes the guarantee provider to provide guarantee contrary to his will by means of fraud, intimidation or the like, and the creditor knows or should know about such fact, Article 30 of Guarantee Law shall apply.
Article 41Where the debtor and the guarantee provider concludes principal and guarantee contracts by jointly cheating the creditor, the creditor may request the people's court to remove such contracts. The guarantee provider and debtor shall bear joint liability for the creditor's consequent loss.
Article 42Where the people's court decides that the guarantee provider shall assume guarantee liability or compensation liability, it shall specify in the verdict that the guarantee provider is entitled to have the rights in Article 31 of the Guarantee Law. If the right of recourse of the guarantee provider is not clearly defined in the verdict, the guarantee provider has to bring another lawsuit on the basis of his compensation.
The limitation of action for the guarantee provider to recover from the debtor shall be calculated from the date when the guarantee provider assumes liability to the creditor.
Article 43Where the guarantee provider assumes liability independently and his actual payment exceeds the principal obligation, the guarantee provider may only have recourse against the debtor within the scope of the principal obligation.
Article 44When the court accepts the bankruptcy application of a debtor during the term of guarantee, the creditor may either declare his claim to the people's court or make a claim to the guarantee provider .
The guarantee provider shall still assume guarantee liability for the portion unpaid
in the bankruptcy procedure after the creditor has declared his claim. The creditor shall require the guarantee provider to perform his obligations within six months from the termination of the bankruptcy procedure.
Article 45Where the creditor knows or should know about the debtor's bankruptcy but fails to declare a claim or notify the guarantee provider, which thus causes the guarantee provider's inability to claim recourse in advance, the guarantee provider will be exempted from obligation within the scope (for the amount) that may be paid in the bankruptcy distribution.
Article 46Where the creditor has not declared his creditor's rights after the court accepts the debtor's bankruptcy case, the joint guarantee providers shall declare their creditor's rights as one body for recourse in advance.
Part IIIInterpretation of Mortgage
Article 47Where the parties have registered the mortgaged property of a house or other buildings that have been approved according to law but not built, or still under construction, such mortgage may be considered valid by the people's court.
Article 48Mortgage on buildings, which is determined by legal procedure as violating laws or regulations, shall be invalid.
Article 49Mortgage on a property without ownership certificate may be considered valid if the ownership certificate is available or the register procedure is handled before termination of court debate in the first instance.
The parties that fail to register the mortgaged property may not counterwork against a third party.
Article 50Where a mortgage is made on all the properties stipulated in Article 34(1) of the Guarantee Law, the scope of the mortgaged property shall be determined by the registration. The value of the mortgaged property shall be made certain upon the realization of hypothec.
Article 51Where the guaranteed creditor's rights exceed the value of the mortgaged property, there will not be priority of payment for the exceeding portion.
Article 52Where the parties make mortgages on crops and the usufruct of the undetached land simultaneously, the mortgage on the usufruct of land shall be invalid.
Article 53Where institutions and social organizations for the public good such as schools, kindergartens, hospitals, etc., for their own debts, make mortgages on properties other than the educational, medical and other facilities for public good, such mortgage may be considered valid by the court.
Article 54Mortgage made by a co-owner by shares on his own share of common property shall be valid. Where the common owner makes a mortgage on the jointly owned property without consent of other owners, such mortgage shall be invalid. Where the other common owners know or should know about such mortgage and do not object it, such act will be deemed as consent and the mortgage shall be valid.
Article 55The procedures of property preservation and execution such as sealing up, detaining, etc. taken to the mortgaged property shall not influence the effect of the mortgage.
Article 56Where there are no stipulations or no clear stipulations in mortgage contract concerning the category of the main creditor's rights guaranteed and the mortgaged property, and can not be supplemented or determined by the principal contract and mortgage contract, the mortgage shall be deemed as not created.
Where after concluding the mortgage contract that will take effect after registration stipulated by law, the mortgagor refuses to go through such procedure according to the principle of good faith, the mortgagor shall compensate the creditor for consequent loss.
Article 57Where the parties stipulate in mortgage contract that the ownership of mortgaged property will be transferred to the creditor if the creditor has not received full payment upon the expiration date of performance, such provision shall be invalid and shall not have effect on other provisions of the contract.
Where a mortgagee has not received full payment at the expiration of the term for performance of obligations, he may negotiate with the mortgagor to obtain the mortgaged property by converting its value. If the interests of later mortgagees
in sequence or other creditors are damaged thereof, the people's court may adopt stipulations of Articles 74 and 75 in Contract Law.
Article 58Where the parties register the mortgaged property at different registration departments in the same day, the order shall be deemed as the same.
Where the continuous registrations are made due to the reasons by the registration department, the first day to register the mortgaged property shall be seen as the registration date of mortgage and shall be the basis to determine the order of hypothec.
Article 59Where the parties can not register the mortgaged property due to the reasons by the registration department and the mortgagor provides the right certificate to the creditor, the creditor shall have priority right of payment for the property. However, without registering the mortgaged property, the parties cannot counterwork against a third party.
Article 60Where a mortgage is made on real property listed in Article 42 (2) of Guarantee Law, and there are no stipulations by governments at county level or above concerning registration departments, if the parities register the mortgage at administration departments of land or real estate, the people's court may confirm effectiveness of such registration.
Article 61Where the content of the mortgage registration is inconsistent with that of the mortgage contract, the former shall prevail.
rticle 62Where the mortgaged property is owned by a third party due to attaching, mixing or processing, the mortgage shall affect the compensation; where the mortgagor becomes the owner of the attachment, mixture or processed articles, the mortgage will affect such attachment, mixture or processed articles; where a third party jointly owns the attachment, mixture or processed articles with the owner of mortgaged property, the mortgage will affect the share enjoyed by the mortgagor.
Article 63Where a property is accessory of the mortgaged property prior to the mortgage enactment, the mortgage shall have effect on such accessory. Where the mortgaged property and its accessory are independently owned by two or more persons, the mortgage shall not have effect on the accessory.
Article 64Where a mortgaged property is detained by a people's court due to the debtor's failure to perform his obligation at the expiration of the term for such performance, as of the date of detaining, the natural and statutory fruits of the mortgaged property obtained by the mortgagee shall be paid in the following order:
1. expenses for obtaining fruits;
2. interest for principal creditor's rights;
3. principal creditor's rights.
Article 65Where the mortgagor makes mortgage on a leased property, after realization of the hypothec, the lease contract shall still be binding on the consignee of such property within the validity period of the lease contract.
Article 66Where the mortgagor leases a mortgaged property, the leasing contract will not be binding on the consignee after realization of the hypothec.
Where when leasing the mortgaged property, the mortgagor fails to notify the leasee in written form about the fact, the mortgagor shall compensate the leasee's loss arising thereof; if notified by the mortgagor in written form, the leasee shall bear the loss individually if any damage arises thereof.
Article 67During the duration of hypothec, if the mortgagor transfers the mortgaged property without notifying the mortgagee or the consignee, the mortgagee can still exercise his hypothec on condition that the mortgaged property has been registered; the consignee who has obtained the ownership of the property may pay all the debts in the debtor's place to extinguish the hypothec. After payment, the consignee is entitled to have recourse against the mortgagor.
If the mortgaged property has not been registered, the mortgagee is not entitled to counterwork against the consignee. Any consequent loss of the mortgagee shall be assumed by the mortgagor.
Article 68The hypothec shall not be influenced if the mortgaged property is inherited or donated.
Article 69Where one creditor has several general creditors and at the time of payment for obligation the debtor maliciously colludes with one of the creditors to mortgage
all or part of his property to the creditor, which results in the loss of capability of the creditor to fulfill other debts and the damage to the legitimate rights and interests of other creditors, the injured creditors may request the people's court to withdraw such mortgage.
Article 70When the act of a mortgagor may depreciate a mortgaged property, and the mortgagor refuses to restore the original condition or provide guarantee, the mortgagee may require the debtor to perform his liability or require to exercise the hypothec in advance.
Article 71Prior to full payment of the principal creditor's rights, the mortgagee may exercise his hypothec on the whole of the mortgaged property.
When the mortgaged property is divided or partially transferred, the mortgagee may exercise his hypothec on the divided or transferred mortgaged property.
Article 72If the principal creditor's rights are divided or partially transferred, every creditor may exercise his share of hypothec.
If the principal debt is divided or partially transferred, the mortgagor still can guarantee the obligation of several debtors s with his mortgaged property. However, if the mortgage is provided by a third party and the creditor allows the debtor to transfer the debt without written consent of the mortgagor, the mortgagor will not be liable for such portion of the obligation.
Article 73Where the prices from converting into money, auctioning or selling of the mortgaged property are lower than the stipulated value when the hypothec is created, payment shall be made according to the actual value of the proceeds. The debtor shall answer for the shortfall.
Article 74When there is no stipulation of the parties on payment, the prices from converting into money, auctioning and selling of the mortgaged property shall be paid in the following order:
1. expenses to realize the hypothec;
2. interest of the principal creditor's rights;
3. principal creditor's rights.
Article 75Where there are two or more mortgagors for the same creditor's rights and the creditor gives up the mortgage guarantee provided by the debtor, the other mortgagors may request the court to lessen or exempt him from guarantee liability.
Where there are two or more mortgagors for the same creditor's rights and there is no stipulation or no clear stipulation on the share or order of the creditor's rights mortgaged by properties, the mortgagee may exercise his right on any one or every one of such properties.
After having borne the guarantee liability, the mortgagor may have recourse against the debtor or require other mortgagors to answer for their own shares.
Article 76Where the same movable property is mortgaged to two or more creditors and the hypothec is realized without registration of the mortgaged property, the creditors shall get payment according to the proportion of the creditor's rights.
Article 77Where the same property is mortgaged to two or more creditors, and the earlier hypothec in sequence and the ownership of the property remains with one person, the property owner may counterwork against the later mortgagees in sequence with his mortgage.
Article 78Where the same property is mortgaged to two or more creditors, and the creditor's rights guaranteed by later hypothec in sequence expires first, the later mortgagee may only get payment from the value portion exceeding the earlier guaranteed creditor's rights in sequence.
Where the earlier guaranteed creditor's rights in sequence expires first, the surplus amount after realization of this mortgage shall be deposited for payment of the later guaranteed creditor's rights in sequence.
Article 79Where the legally registered hypothec and pledge coexist on one property, the mortgagee shall have priority in payment to the pledgee.
Where the pledge and lien coexist on one property, the lienor shall have priority in payment to the pledgee.
Article 80The mortgagee shall have the right of priority in receiving payment of insurance money, compensation and damages if the mortgaged property is lost, damaged or requisitioned.
Where the guaranteed creditor's rights by hypothec has not expired when the mortgaged property is lost, damaged or requisitioned, the mortgagee may request the people's court to preserve the insurance money, compensation or damages, etc.
Article 81The scope of creditor's rights guaranteed by the hypothec up to a maximum amount shall not include the creditor's rights that arise from property preservation or execution procedure of sealing-up, or creditor's rights arising after bankruptcy of the debtor or the mortgagor.
Article 82Where the parties alter the maximum amount and duration of a mortgage up to a maximum amount and counterpart against later mortgagees in sequence with this alteration, such act will not be supported by the people's court.
Article 83After specifying the uncertain creditor's rights secured by a mortgage up to a maximum amount, the mortgagee may exercise his hypothec according to the stipulations of general mortgage at the expiration of the performance term.
When exercising such hypothec, if the actual balance of the creditor's rights exceeds the maximum amount, the mortgagee can have priority to pay for the maximum amount except the exceeding portion. If the actual balance of the creditor's rights is less than the maximum amount, the mortgagee shall have priority to pay for the actual balance of the creditor's rights.
Part IVInterpretation of Pledge Section
Section IPledge of Movable Property
Article 84Where a pledgor has no ownership of a movable property and he pledges such legally possessed movable property, after the pledgee exercises his right of guarantee without knowing such fact, the pledgor shall compensate the owner of the movable property for his consequent loss if any.
Article 85Where the debtor or a third party transfers the possession of his special account, sealed money, deposit or other forms of money to the creditor as pledge for the creditor's rights after specifying the above money, the creditor shall be entitled to have priority in receiving payment with such money if the debtor does not perform obligation.
Article 86Where the debtor or the third party fails to transfer a pledged property at the time agreed upon in the pledge contract, the pledgor shall assume the compensation liability for his fault if any loss is caused to the pledgee.
Article 87If a pledgor possesses the pledged property instead of the pledgee, the pledge contract shall not go into effect; if the pledgee returns the pledged property to the pledgor and counterwork against the third party with his pledge right, the court will not support the pledgee. If the possession of pledged property is lost without any fault of the pledgee, he may require the unwarrantable possessor to cease infringement, restore original condition or return the pledged property.
Article 88Where the pledgor pledges an indirectly possessed property, the receipt of a written notice of the pledge contract shall be regarded as a successful transfer. If the possessor still disposes the pledged property as instructed by the pledgor after receipt of such notice, such act shall be regarded as invalid.
Article 89Where there is no stipulation on pledged property in pledge contract or the stipulated pledged property is inconsistent with that actually transferred, the actually transferred property shall be the final.
Article 90If the hidden defect of the pledged property causes damage to the pledgee's other properties, the pledgor shall assume compensation liability, unless the pledgee accepts such property knowingly at the time of transfer.
Article 91The pledge of movable property shall have effect on the accessory of the pledged property except when the accessory is not transferred to the pledgee together with the pledged property.
Article 92If the pledged property is deposited according to Article 69 of Guarantee Law, the deposit cost shall be covered by the pledgee; if the pledgor makes payment in advance, the interest of non-expired obligation shall be deducted.
Article 93During the duration of pledge, if the pledgee uses, leasesor disposes of the pledged property without consent of pledgor, he shall compensate the pledgor for the loss caused by the above behavior.
Article 94Where during the duration of the pledge, the pledgee pledges for a third party with the pledged property in his possession to guarantee his own debt with the pledgor's consent, such pledge shall not exceed the scope of obligation
guaranteed by the original pledge; and the exceeding portion, if any, shall not be paid with priority. Re-pledge is prior to the original one.
During the duration of pledge, the pledgee makes guarantee on the pledged property to a third party to guarantee the pledgee's debt without the pledgor's consent shall be invalid. The pledgee shall assume the liability for damage caused by re-pledge.
Article 95Where the pledgee is not paid at the expiration of the term for obligation performance, he may hold the pledged property and exercise his right with all of the property. After receiving payment from the pledgor, the pledgee shall return the pledged property.
Where at the expiration of the term for obligation performance, after being required by the pledgor, the pledgee fails to exercise his right and causes depreciation of the pledged property, the pledgee shall assume the compensation liability for the consequent loss.
Article 96Articles 57, 62, 64, 71, 72,73, 74 and 80 of this Interpretation shall be applicable to the pledge of movable properties.
Section IIPledge of Rights
Article 97Article 75(4) of Guarantee Law shall apply to the pledge on the right of proceeds from such real properties as highway bridges, tunnels or ferries.
Article 98Where a pledge is made on bill of exchange, cheque and promissory note, and there is no writing of "pledge" in the endorsement, the court shall not support the defense with such pledge against a third party of good faith.
Article 99If a pledge is made on company debenture, and there is no writing of "pledge" in the endorsement, the court shall not support the defense with such pledge against a third party of good faith.
Article 100Where a pledge is made on deposit certificates, and the issuing bank accepts the loss report after checking and thus causes the deposit loss, the bank shall bear civil liability.
Article 101Where a pledge is made on bills, bonds, deposit certificates, warehouse receipts or bills of lading, the re-transfer or pledge by the pledgee shall be invalid.
Article 102Where a pledge is made on bills of exchange, cheque, promissory notes, bonds, deposit certificates, warehouse receipts or bills of lading, and the specified date for encashment or delivery of goods falls behind the term for obligation performance, the pledgee may only cash it or deliver the goods at the expiration of the term for encashment or delivery.
Article 103Where a pledge is made on shares of a limited liability company by shares, the relevant provisions of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China for transfer of shares shall apply.
Where a pledge is made on shares of a listed company, the pledge contract shall go into effect as of the date when the pledge is recorded in the securities registry.
Where a pledge is made on shares of a non-listed company, the pledge contract shall go into effect as of the date when the pledge is recorded in the register of shareholders.
Article 104Where a pledge is made on shares and stocks that are transferable according to law, the pledge right shall have effect on statutory fruits of shares and stocks.
Article 105Where a pledge is made on the exclusive use right of trademarks or on the property right in the patent rights or the copyrights that are transferable according to law, and the pledgor assigns such rights or permits others to use such rights without consent of the pledgee, such act shall be considered invalid. The pledgor shall assume civil liability for the consequent loss of the pledgee or the third party.
Article 106Where the pledgee exercises his pledge right to the pledgor or the debtor that has of pledged the creditor's rights, which is refused by them, he may bring lawsuit against the pledgor and the debtor who has pledged the creditor's rights, or sue the debtor separately.
Part VInterpretation of Lien Section
Article 107Where the parties agree in contract to exclude lien, the court shall not support the exercise of lien by the creditor at the expiration of term for obligation performance.
Article 108Where the creditor possesses the debtor's movable properties lawfully and is not aware that the debtor has no right to dispose the movable properties, the creditor may be entitled to exercise the lien according to Article 82 of Guarantee Law.
Article 109Upon expiration of the term for obligation performance, if the creditor's possession of a movable property is related to the occurrence of his creditor's rights, the creditor may retain the movable property under his possession.
Article 110If the lien article is not separable prior to full payment of the obligation, the lienor may exercise the lien on the entire lien article.
Article 111The court shall not support the creditor's lien if such lien conflicts with his liability or specific stipulations of the contract.
Article 112Where the creditor's rights have not expired but his liability to offer a possessed article has expired, the creditor can not be entitled to exercise lien unless the creditor can prove that the debtor is not capable of paying.
Article 113If the creditor directly converts the lien article into value Without informing the debtor to fulfill liability according to Article 87 of Guarantee Law, he shall bear compensation liability for consequent loss. If the creditor agrees with the debtor on grace period in the contract according to Article 87 of Guarantee Law, the creditor may exercise lien without notification.
Article 114Articles of 64, 80,87,91 and 93 of this Interpretation shall be applicable to lien.
Part VIInterpretation of Deposit Section
Article 115Where the parties agree to pay a deposit to guarantee the creation of a principal contract, if the party paying the deposit refuses to sign the contract as agreed, he/it shall not have the right to demand a refund of the deposit; if the party receiving the deposit refuses to sign the contract, he/it shall refund twice the amount of the deposit.
担保法司法解释起草人曹士兵+解读担保法司法解释的若干问题主持人：今天晚上我们十分荣幸地请到最高人民法院民二庭的曹士兵老师为我们做题为《担保法司法解释的若干问题》的讲座，下面让我们以热烈的掌声欢迎曹老师的精彩演讲。 曹士兵：首先非常荣幸能到人民大学来同大家一起学习《担保法》及其相关司法解释。 《担保法》及其相关司法解释的内容是非常庞杂的，而我们今天只有两个小时的时间，我想，在座各位可能有一些了解担保法及其相关知识，有些可能并不太熟悉我们国家这方面的法律，所以我尽量讲一些比较具有代表性的问题。在此之前我想谈一下我个人做法官的体会，也就是我自己在做司法解释时的一些体会。 我是95 年从社科院法学所博士毕业以后进入最高人民法院的，至今已工作了六年，有一些体会。我先说一下做法官的体会和具体到担保法的一些体会，然后再讲一些担保法中比较重要的制度以及规范。中国的法律和国外的法律一样，都体现在具体的规范当中，一个制度是通过规范而存在的。对一种法律及其相关规范，不同的人进行研究时也并不相同，法官是如何看待法律的呢？我个人最大的体会是，法官看法律犹如一个技术员。我们在座的学生和学校的老师在研究法律的时候，尤其是研究理论法时，很多是把目光放在文化、逻辑和历史上面，而做为一个法官在看待法律时是看其具体的法律规范。如果碰到一个纠纷，要是去问法官，他会告诉你这个纠纷在中国的法律下大概会如何；如果去问一个理论家的话，他会告诉你他个人会认为是怎么样。所以我觉得，在法官眼中看法律是看每个具体的法律条文的，或者说，法官在讨论一个问题时不会谈到个人的观点，他不是靠观点而是靠依据来办理案子。 在我所写的《中国担保诸问题的解决》一书的前言中就是论述的这个问题。我们在做法学研究时，有些人研究的是法律哲学，法律文化，而法官研究的是“法之术”，即对于手中的案件，中国法中有哪些法律资源可供裁决，而且这些裁决必须有明确的依据，这些依据要体现在判决书中，这是我做法官的一点感觉。在座各位如果未来还是研究法律的话，大体上有二条路，一条就是研究“法之学”，一条是研究“法之术”，研究“法之学”还是研究“法之术” 都应当是融汇贯通的，也就是说我们既不能撇开中国的法律而去研究法，也不能撇开法的传统、历史、文化而仅仅研究条文。两者如果欠缺其中之一，水平都会受到局限，最好是先知道法的规范，在此基础上知道世界各国在同样的地方有怎样的规定，在制度上进行横向的比较。还要知道其文化，了解为什么在同样的问题上不同的法系会有不同的处理方法，显然这是来源于一个国家的传统和文化的。法律毕竟不象自然科学那样，它的研究对象是人，因此必然会有差异。我之所以要讲这些内容，是因为对于担保法而言，当一个法官来讲担保法时，实际是要解决整个担保纠纷当中的种种问题，提供解决方法。当然这里所有的解决方法都不是法官的个人观点，而是必须有依据的。因此，作为一个法官来谈担保法时就要告诉别人，中国的担保法是怎么规定的；如果担保法中没有规定的话，司法解释是怎么规定的；如果司法解释也没有规定的话，域外法又是怎么规定的。总体来说，就是具体到每一个细节上去。 有时你会发现不同的案件就因为证据上的细微的区别，会导致处理上的不同。 但担保法毕竟是一个小法，某种意义上讲是一个特别法。我们在了解它时，至少要有一个基本的出发点，即研究某一法律时不能研究空中楼阁，要有基本
2020年最新担保法司法解释 第一，澄清了担保法的模糊规定。主要表现在以下六个方面： 1.明确了反担保的规定 反担保是被担保的债务人或第三人为确保担保人承担担保责任后对债务人权利的实现而设定的担保。对于反担保，司法解释主要明确了两个问题：一是反担保人的范围，担保法司法解释规定反担保人可以是债务人，也可以是债务人之外的其他人。二是反映担保的方式，《担保法司法解释》明确规定："反担保方式可以是债务人提供的抵押或者质押，也可以是其他人提供的保证、抵押、质押。" 2.合同变更对保证责任的影响 关于合同变更与保证人的责任，《担保法》第24条规定："债权人与债务人协议变更主合同的，应当取得保证人书面同意，未经保证人书面同意的，保证人不再承担保证责任。" 对于这一规定，实践中的理解很不一致。有人认为，凡变更主合同的，未经保证人书面同意，保证人就不承担保证责任;有人认为，只有在主合同客体和内容变更时，未经保证人书面同意的，保证人才不承担保证责任;还有人认为，担保法规定的变更合同，是指合同更新。对此，《担保法司法解释》第30条作了详细的说明，这一解释可以分为三种情况第一，保证期间，债权人与债务人对主合同数量、价款、币种、利率等内容作了变动，未经保证人同意的，如果减轻债务人的债务的，保证人仍应当对变更后的合同承担保证责任;如果加重债务人债务的，保证人对加重的部分不承担保证责任。这一解释符合保证责任的附随性原理。但这
里只是规定了合同的内容变更的情况，而没有包括合同标的的变更。因此，变更合同标的的，未经保证人书面同意的，保证人不承担保证责任。 第二，债权人与债务人对主合同履行期限作了变动，未经保证人书面同意的，保证期间为原合同约定的或法律规定的期间。 第三，债权人与债务人协议变动主合同内容，但并未实际履行的，保证人仍应当承担保证责任。例如，主合同双方当事人虽然协商对主合同的部分进行了变更，但双方并没有按照变更后的内容履行，虽然变更未经保证人的同意，保证人仍然应当承担责任。 3.混合共同担保 混合共同担保是对同一债权既有保证，又有抵押、质押担保的情况，也就是人的担保与物的担保混合。关于混合共同担保，《担保法》第28条规定："同一债权既有保证又有物的担保的，保证人对物的担保以外的债权承担保证责任;债权人放弃物的担保的，保证人在债权人放弃权利的范围内免除保证责任。"对这一规定，实践中理解不一，主要分歧在于物的担保的提供人是谁。我认为，《担保法》第28条的规定，应仅指保证和债务人提供物的担保的情况，而不包括第三人提供物的担保的情况。因为，保证人和物上保证人都属于保证人，在清偿上不应存在先后次序。那么，在保证人与第三人提供的物的担保混合的情况下，应如何处理，《担保法司法解释》第38条作了规定。该条规定："同一债权既有保证又有第三人提供物的担保的，债权人可以请求保证人或者物的担保人承担担保责任。当事人对保证担保的范
2019年担保法司法解释：关于其他问题的解释 七、关于其他问题的解释 第一百二十三条同一债权上数个担保物权并存时，债权人放弃 债务人提供的物的担保的，其他担保人在其放弃权利的范围内减轻或 者免除担保责任。 第一百二十四条企业法人的分支机构为他人提供保证的，人民 法院在审理保证纠纷案件中能够将该企业法人作为共同被告参加诉讼。但是商业银行、保险公司的分支机构提供保证的除外。 第一百二十五条一般保证的债权人向债务人和保证人一并提起 诉讼的，人民法院能够将债务人和保证人列为共同被告参加诉讼。但是，理应在判决书中明确在对债务人财产依法强制执行后仍不能履行 债务时，由保证人承担保证责任。 第一百二十六条连带责任保证的债权人能够将债务人或者保证 人作为被告提起诉讼，也能够将债务人和保证人作为共同被告提起诉讼。 第一百二十七条债务人对债权人提起诉讼，债权人提起反诉的，保证人能够作为第三人参加诉讼。 第一百二十八条债权人向人民法院请求行使担保物权时，债务 人和担保人理应作为共同被告参加诉讼。 同一债权既有保证又有物的担保的，当事人发生纠纷提起诉讼的，债务人与保证人、抵押人或者出质人能够作为共同被告参加诉讼。 第一百二十九条主合同和担保合同发生纠纷提起诉讼的，理应 根据主合同确定案件管辖。担保人承担连带责任的担保合同发生纠纷，债权人向担保人主张权利的，理应由担保人住所地的法院管辖。
主合同和担保合同选择管辖的法院不一致的，理应根据主合同确定案件管辖。 第一百三十条在主合同纠纷案件中，对担保合同未经审判，人民法院不理应依据对主合同当事人所作出的判决或者裁定，直接执行担保人的财产。 第一百三十一条本解释所称“不能清偿”指对债务人的存款、现金、有价证券、成品、半成品、原材料、交通工具等能够执行的动产和其他方便执行的财产执行完毕后，债务仍未能得到清偿的状态。 第一百三十二条在案件审理或者执行程序中，当事人提供财产担保的，人民法院理应对该财产的权属证书予以扣押，同时向相关部门发出协助执行通知书，要求其在规定的时间内不予办理担保财产的转移手续。 第一百三十三条担保法施行以前发生的担保行为，适用担保行为发生时的法律法规和相关司法解释。 担保法施行以后因担保行为发生的纠纷案件，在本解释公布施行前已经终审，当事人申请再审或者按审判监督程序决定再审的，不适用本解释。 担保法施行以后因担保行为发生的纠纷案件，在本解释公布施行后尚在一审或二审阶段的，适用担保法和本解释。 第一百三十四条人民法院在担保法施行以前作出的相关担保问题的司法解释，与担保法和本解释相抵触的，不再适用。
中华人民共和国担保法解释 《中华人民共和国担保法》由中华人民共和国第八届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第十四次会议于1995年6月30日通过，自1995年10月1日起施行。《担保法》的颁布标志着中国担保立法进入了一个新的阶段。《担保法》对保证作了较为详尽的规定，其中有些是对原有规定作了修正，有些是对原来欠缺的部分作了补充。 担保行为不仅可以发生在民商事关系中，也可以发生在司法程序中，比如法院执行程序中的执行担保，所以《中华人民共和国担保法》(以下简称《担保法》)及其最高人民法院《关于适用〈中华人民共和国担保法〉若干问题的解释》(以下简称《担保法解释》)也同样适用于执行中的担保行为。但是，执行担保与民商事关系中的担保有很多不同之处，因此，两者在《担保法》及其司法解释的适用上也有各自的不同。 民商事关系中的担保方式有保证、抵押、质押、留置、定金五种，由于司法程序的特殊性，留置与定金不能作为执行中的担保方式，只有保证、抵押、质押适用于执行担保。 《中华人民共和国担保法》 - 指导意见 第一条保险人为分期付款的商品买受人履行付款义务提供保证保险，而商品买受人没有履行付款义务，保险合同受益人请求法院判令保险人承担民事责任的，法院应适用《保险法》的规定确定保险人责任。保险人在签订保险合同时，又向债权人出具有保证买受人履行债务内容的保证书，债权人要求保险人承担保证责任的，法院可以适用保证的法律、法规确定保险人的民事责任。 第二条主债务人超过诉讼时效后，债务人与债权人重新达成还款协议的，除保证人明确表示继续提供保证外，保证人不再承担保证责任。 第三条债权人未在保证期间内向保证人主张权利，保证期间届满后，保证人在催款通知书上签字盖章的，除保证人在催款通知书明确表示不再承担责任外，保证人仍应承担保证责任。 第四条保证人的保证责任已经超过诉讼时效，保证人在债权人催款通知书上以保证人的身份签字盖章的，应视为设立新的保证。
STANDARD CONTRACT SAMPLE (合同范本) 甲方：____________________ 乙方：____________________ 签订日期：____________________ 编号：YB-HT-031843 担保法司法解释：房产抵押担
担保法司法解释：房产抵押担保借款合同纠纷案(合同范本) 第二组是证明抵押借款合同有效并已履行的证据材料。1、国家外汇管理局武汉分局武外管(1988)27号《关于中国工商银行武汉市分行开办外汇业务的批复》;2、《经营外汇许可证》;3、武工银(95)外(揭)字第(武广)056号房产抵押担保借款合同;4、借据;5、上帐通知;6、转帐凭证。 第三组《催收贷款公函》及邮件详情单，证明国通支行向钟辉麟主张权利的证据材料。 第四组是证明国通支行向华信公司主张权利的证据材料。1、20xx年4月10日和20xx年8月22日国通支行向华信公司发出《要求履行担保责任函》、《武汉广场业主欠息清单》及邮件查询单;2、华信公司向国通支行发出回购清单的传真;3、1998年12月17日华信公司收到国通支行催款公函回执。 第五组是证明钟辉麟已还和未还本息的凭证。1、《中国工商银行贷款对帐单》表明,未还本金港币461,826.03元;2、《国际业务部按揭贷款卡片帐》表明，已还本金145,506.97港元。 被告钟辉麟提交4份证据材料：1、中电德信发展有限公司出具的收款收据，
证明钟辉麟还贷本息港币222,017.41元。2、《武汉广场工程风险承包合同书》，证明房屋竣工时间迟于购房合同约定的交房时间，而贷款人未予审查;3、湖北省高级人民法院(20xx)鄂民四初字第3号民事判决书、最高人民法院(20xx)民一终字第24号民事判决书，证明华信公司逾期交房，房屋买卖合同解除;4、国通支行工商登记资料。 被告华信公司提交2份证据：20xx年11月14日《企业登记信息表》、《情况说明报告》，证明国通支行与国际业务部之间没有法律关系。 原告国通支行、被告钟辉麟、被告华信公司提交的上述证据材料，经庭前交换、庭审质证，双方当事人发表质证意见如下： 钟辉麟对国通支行提交的第二组证据材料中房产抵押担保借款合同、借据的真实性不持异议，但认为不能证明贷款已划至华信公司帐上;第一组证据不能证明国通支行与国际业务部的关系;第三组证据催款通知书,没有说明国通支行与国际业务部的关系，且钟辉麟未收到催款通知书;第五组证据对帐单及按揭贷款卡片帐计算的还款金额有误，不予认可，应以答辩状为准。 华信公司对国通支行提交的证据材料的真实性除第四组证据“传真”外均不持异议，但认为第一组证据即便能够证明国通支行的设立与其承接国际业务部债权债务的行为属于债权转移法律行为，但因未通知保证人华信公司，因而债权转移无效;第二组证据不能证明放贷主体合法有效;第三组证据与华信公司无关;第四组中的邮件证据，邮件查询单“华信管理收发章收”，不能证明华信公司收到此邮件，即便收到也不能证明邮件内容就是《要求履行担保责任函》;第五组证据确定的利率不符合法律规定，不予认可。 国通支行对钟辉麟提交的4份证据材料真实性不持异议。但认为其证据1
《物权法》与《担保法》及《担保法司法解释》的简要对比 天津长丰律师事务所武志国/整理 按照《物权法》关于担保物权的条文逐条说明: 第四编担保物权 第十五章一般规定 第一百七十条担保物权人在债务人不履行到期债务或者发生当事人约定的实现担保物权的情形，依法享有就担保财产优先受偿的权利，但法律另有规定的除外。第一百七十一条债权人在借贷、买卖等民事活动中，为保障实现其债权，需要担保的，可以依照本法和其他法律的规定设立担保物权。 第三人为债务人向债权人提供担保的，可以要求债务人提供反担保。反担保适用本法和其他法律的规定。 第一百七十二条设立担保物权，应当依照本法和其他法律的规定订立担保合同。担保合同是主债权债务合同的从合同。主债权债务合同无效，担保合同无效，但法律另有规定的除外。 担保合同被确认无效后，债务人、担保人、债权人有过错的，应当根据其过错各自承担相应的民事责任。 〖对比说明〗主合同无效对从合同效力的影响，主合同无效时从合同的效力取决于“法定”而非“约定”。 第一百七十三条担保物权的担保范围包括主债权及其利息、违约金、损害赔偿金、保管担保财产和实现担保物权的费用。当事人另有约定的，按照约定。〖对比说明〗糅合了《担保法》第46条、第67条、第83条 第一百七十四条担保期间，担保财产毁损、灭失或者被征收等，担保物权人可以就获得的保险金、赔偿金或者补偿金等优先受偿。被担保债权的履行期未届满
的，也可以提存该保险金、赔偿金或者补偿金等。 〖对比说明〗糅合了《担保法》第73条第58条和《保法法解释》第80条的规定“抵押权人可以请求人民法院对保险金、赔偿金或补偿金等采取“保全”措施，修改为“提存”。 第一百七十五条第三人提供担保，未经其书面同意，债权人允许债务人转移全部或者部分债务的，担保人不再承担相应的担保责任。 〖对比说明〗言外之意，担保人不对未经其同意的债务转让行为不再承担担保责任。 第一百七十六条被担保的债权既有物的担保又有人的担保的，债务人不履行到期债务或者发生当事人约定的实现担保物权的情形，债权人应当按照约定实现债权；没有约定或者约定不明确，债务人自己提供物的担保的，债权人应当先就该物的担保实现债权；第三人提供物的担保的，债权人可以就物的担保实现债权，也可以要求保证人承担保证责任。提供担保的第三人承担担保责任后，有权向债务人追偿。 〖对比说明〗糅合了《担保法》第二十八条和《担保法私法解释》第三十八条。 第一百七十七条有下列情形之一的，担保物权消灭： （一）主债权消灭； （二）担保物权实现； （三）债权人放弃担保物权； （四）法律规定担保物权消灭的其他情形。 〖对比说明〗糅合了《担保法》第52条、第74条、第88条中主债权消灭导致的担保物权消灭的情形，但准确地总结了担保物权消灭的其他原因。 第一百七十八条担保法与本法的规定不一致的，适用本法。 〖对比说明〗重要的法律适用指引，一律以《物权法》规定为准。
担保法及司法解释规范整理 第一章总则 《担保法解释》12条第二款：作废——被《物权法》202条替代； 第二章保证 《担保法解释》29条：修订——被《物权法》175修改； 《担保法》24条〔主合同变更对保证人的效力〕：修订——被《物权法》所扩充。 《担保法》25条〔一般保证的保证期间〕第二款最后一句“保证期间适用诉讼时效中断的规定”删除。 《担保法》28条〔保证与物的担保并存时保证人的责任〕：修订——被《物权法》176条修订。 《担保法解释》38条：修订——被《物权法》176条修订。 第三章抵押 《担保法》34条〔抵押财产的范围〕：修订——被《物权法》180条修订； 点评：除《担保法》第34条外，与可抵押财产有关的还有《担保法》36条以及《解释》第47条，现均被《物权法》180所扩充：主要有三点修改。 ①扩大了可抵押财产的范围，如180条第四、五项正在建造的船舶、飞行 器，生产设备、原材料、半成品、产品 ②以“招标、拍卖、公开协商”取得的“四荒”的承包经营权不经过发包 人同意也可以抵押。与《农村土地承包法》衔接，修改了《担保法》34 条（五）项。 ③述词修改，表述为“有权处分的财产”。
《担保法解释》49条：作废——被《物权法》相关条款所更改； 《担保法解释》56条第二款：作废——被《物权法》相关条款所更改 点评：区分了合同生效与抵押权生效。 《担保法》41条〔抵押登记〕：作废——被《物权法》15、187～189代替。 点评：原《担保法》混淆了物权、债权关系。 《担保法解释》59条：作废 《担保法》42条〔必须办理抵押登记的情形〕、64条〔质押合同的订立与效力〕：修订——被《物权法》15条以及相关条款所修改； 点评：《物权法》将《担保法》的合同登记改为权利（物权登记）。 《担保法》49条〔抵押物的转让〕第一款、第二款：作废——被《物权法》191条替代。 点评：第一款原规定“通知”被修改为“须经同意”。第三款已经无意义，《物权法》已有更完整规定。 《担保法》53条〔抵押权的清偿〕：修订——被《物权法》195条修订。 点评：一是加强了对其他债权人的保护，规定了其撤销权（一年的除斥期）。二是明确了抵押财产折价或变卖的，应当参照市场价格（注：在质权与留置权部分中也有该规定）。 《担保法》54条〔多个担保物权的清偿〕：作废——被《物权法》199条替代；《担保法》58条〔抵押权的消灭〕：作废——被《物权法》174条替代； 《担保法解释》80条：修订——被《物权法》174条所补充。 《担保法》第59条〔最高额抵押的一般规定〕：作废——被《物权法》203条所修改； 点评：范围被扩大
《担保法》名词解释 1、保证人追偿权：指保证人在履行保证债务后，得请求主债务人偿还的权利。 2、追偿指：保险人代致害人暂时支付其应当自行承担的抢救费用后，保险人按照法律规定和保险合同的约定，要求致害人偿还垫付费用的行为。 3、提存：由于债权人的原因而无法向其交付合同标的物时，债务人将该标的物交给提存机关而消灭债务的制度。 （债务人为提存人；债权人为提存领受人；由国家设立并保管提存物的机关为提存机关） 4、担保特指：《担保法》规定的担保，即在借贷、买卖、货物运输、加工承揽等经济活动中，债权人需要以担保方式保障其债权实现而设定的担保。 5、中小企业信用担保指：经同级人民政府及政府指定部门审核批准设立并依法登记注册的中小企业信用担保专门机构与债权人（包括银行等金融机构）约定，当被担保人不履行或不能履行主合同约定债务时，担保机构承担约定的责任或履行债务的行为。 6、中小企业信用担保性质：中小企业信用担保属《担保法》规定的保证行为。中小企业信用担保机构为政府间接支持中小企业发展的政策性扶持机构。各类中小企业信用担保机构均属非金融机构，一律不得从事财政信用业务和金融业务。 7、再担保是指：为担保人设立的担保。当担保人不能独立承担担保责任时，再担保人将按合同约定比例向债权人继续剩余的清偿，以保障债权的实现。双方按约承担相应责任，享有相应权利。 8、担保、再担保的对象：中小企业信用担保的对象为符合国家产业政策，有产品、有市场、有发展前景，有利于技术进步与创新的技术密集型和扩大城乡就业的劳动密集型的各类中小企业。省级再担保对象为市（县）级担保机构。 9、担保方式分为保证、抵押、质押、留置和定金。 ①保证，是指保证人和债权人约定，当债务人不履行债务时，保证人按照约定履行债务或者承担责任的行为。 ②抵押，是指债务人或者第三人不转移对财产的占有，将该财产作为债权的担保。
2020年最新担保法司法解释规章制度 1.明确了反担保的规定 反担保是被担保的债务人或第三人为确保担保人承担担保责任后对债务人权利的实现而设定的担保。对于反担保，司法解释主要明确了两个问题：一是反担保人的范围，担保法司法解释规定反担保人可以是债务人，也可以是债务人之外的其他人。二是反映担保的方式，《担保法司法解释》明确规定：反担保方式可以是债务人提供的抵押或者质押，也可以是其他人提供的保证、抵押、质押。 2.合同变更对保证责任的影响 关于合同变更与保证人的责任，《担保法》第24条规定：债权人与债务人协议变更主合同的，应当取得保证人书面同意，未经保证人书面同意的，保证人不再承担保证责任。对于这一规定，实践中的理解很不一致。有人认为，凡变更主合同的，未经保证人书面同意，保证人就不承担保证责任;有人认为，只有在主合同客体和内容变更时，未经保证人书面同意的，保证人才不承担保证责任;还有人认为，担保法规定的变更合同，是指合同更新。对此，《担保法司法解释》第30条作了详细的说明，这一解释可以分为三种情况第一，保证期间，债权人与债务人对主合同数量、价款、币种、利率等内容作了变动，未经保证人同意的，如果减轻债务人的债务的，保证人仍应当对变更后的合同承担保证责任;如果加重债务人债务的，保证人对加
重的部分不承担保证责任。这一解释符合保证责任的附随性原理。但这里只是规定了合同的内容变更的情况，而没有包括合同标的的变更。因此，变更合同标的的，未经保证人书面同意的，保证人不承担保证责任。 第二，债权人与债务人对主合同履行期限作了变动，未经保证人书面同意的，保证期间为原合同约定的或法律规定的期间。 第三，债权人与债务人协议变动主合同内容，但并未实际履行的，保证人仍应当承担保证责任。例如，主合同双方当事人虽然协商对主合同的部分进行了变更，但双方并没有按照变更后的内容履行，虽然变更未经保证人的同意，保证人仍然应当承担责任。 3.混合共同担保 混合共同担保是对同一债权既有保证，又有抵押、质押担保的情况，也就是人的担保与物的担保混合。关于混合共同担保，《担保法》第28条规定：同一债权既有保证又有物的担保的，保证人对物的担保以外的债权承担保证责任;债权人放弃物的担保的，保证人在债权人放弃权利的范围内免除保证责任。对这一规定，实践中理解不一，主要分歧在于物的担保的提供人是谁。我认为，《担保法》第28条的规定，应仅指保证和债务人提供物的担保的情况，而不包括第三人提供物的担保的情况。因为，保证人和物上保证人都属于保证人，在清偿上不应存在先后次序。那么，在保证人与第三人提供的物的担
关于“担保法解释”第129条的理解与适用 法条： 主合同和担保合同发生纠纷提起诉讼的，应当根据主合同确定案件管辖。担保人承担连带责任的担保合同发生纠纷，债权人向担保人主张权利的，应当由担保人住所地的法院管辖。 主合同和担保合同选择管辖的法院不一致的，应当根据主合同确定案件管辖。 案例： 甲乙签订购销合同，甲买乙卖，甲住A地，乙住B地，主和同约定管辖法院为A地。丙（住所C地）与甲乙在D地签订了担保合同，为甲付款提供连带担保，约定担保合同纠纷由管辖法院为D地。后因甲不能付款，乙在D地仅起诉丙，要求其付款。 问题：何地有管辖权？ 第一种意见：C地法院。理由：担保法解释第129条第一款“担保人承担连带责任的担保合同发生纠纷，债权人向担保人主张权利的，应当由担保人住所地的法院管辖”，所以应由C地管辖。 第二种意见：D地法院。理由：担保法解释第129条第一款“担保人承担连带责任的担保合同发生纠纷，债权人向担保人主张权利的，应当由担保人住所地的法院管辖”属于法定管辖；《民事诉讼法》第25条规定“合同的双方当事人可以在书面合同中协议选择被告住所地、合同履行地、合同签订地、原告住所地、标的物所在地人民法院管辖，但不得违反本法对级别管辖和专属管辖的规定”；根据约定管辖优先的原则，D地法院有管辖权。 第三仲意见：A地法院。理由：担保法解释第129条第二款“主合同和担保
合同选择管辖的法院不一致的，应当根据主合同确定案件管辖”，本案中，主合同约定管辖法院为A地，担保合同约定管辖法院为D地，应根据主合同确定管辖，即为A地。 分析： 笔者同意第二种意见。理由：对于第一意见，笔者认为担保人住所地法院管辖属于“法定管辖”，根据约定管辖优先法定管辖的原则，应由担保合同约定管辖地管辖。对于第三种意见，笔者认为是建立在同时起诉主合同和担保合同的前提下。如果只就担保人进行起诉，则应根据担保法解释第129条第一款“担保人承担连带责任的担保合同发生纠纷，债权人向担保人主张权利的，应当由担保人住所地的法院管辖”和《民事诉讼法》第25条“合同的双方当事人可以在书面合同中协议选择被告住所地、合同履行地、合同签订地、原告住所地、标的物所在地人民法院管辖，但不得违反本法对级别管辖和专属管辖的规定”确定管辖。
相较于《担保法》和《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国担保法>若干问题的解释》（以下简称“《担保法司法解释》”）中关于保证合同的规定，《民法典》作出了六大变更，第一，对于保证合同的性质、范围、内容与形式，《民法典》不仅明确了保证合同的从属性及其例外，扩大了保证合同意思自治的范围，还对保证合同的内容与形式在结合《民法典》上下文的规定的基础上，作出了相应的删减，以避免冗余；第二，针对保证人，《民法典》对不得担任保证人的措辞进行了修改；第三，针对保证方式，《民法典》修改常态保证的方式为一般保证，细化了一般保证先诉抗辩权的例外情形，并对最高额保证参照适用最高额抵押的规则作出明确；第四，对于保证期间与诉讼时效，《民法典》对没有约定保证期间或者保证期间约定不明确的，统一规定保证期间为主债务履行期限届满之日起六个月，此外，《民法典》亦完善了一般保证诉讼时效的起算时间；第五，《民法典》明确了债权变更、转让与债务转移对保证责任的影响；第六，《民法典》细化了对保证人追偿权的规定，并新增了保证人对债权人所享有的抗辩权的规定。总体而言，《民法典》对保证合同相关的规定，相较于《担保法》及其司法解释而言，更为系统，也更加细化，使得实务中更具操作性，本文将在对比研究《民法典》与《担保法》及其司法解释的规定的基础上，对前述六项变更予以分析评述。 一、保证合同 (一) 保证合同的性质与范围
1. 变化要点一：保证合同的从属性及其例外 相较于《担保法》第5条，《民法典》第682条对于保证合同的从属性，增加了“法律另有规定的除外”的表述，明确了独立保函系保证合同从属性的例外的情形。对此，可结合《九民纪要》第54条予以理解：“从属性是担保的基本属性，但由银行或者非银行金融机构开立的独立保函除外。独立保函纠纷案件依据《最高人民法院关于审理独立保函纠纷案件若干问题的规定》处理。需要进一步明确的是：凡是由银行或者非银行金融机构开立的符合该司法解释第1条、第3条规定情形的保函，无论是用于国际商事交易还是用于国内商事交易，均不影响保函的效力。银行或者非银行金融机构之外的当事人开立的独立保函，以及当事人有关排除担保从属性的约定，应当认定无效。”值得注意的是，根据《九民纪要》的规定，此处的“认定无效”适用“无效法律行为的转换”的原理——认定无效的是当事人之间对担保独立性的约定，而非当事人之间对于担保的约定。 2. 变化要点二：保证合同意思自治的范围 相较于《担保法》第6条，《民法典》第681条明确了保证合同的目的是为保障债权的实现，并增加了担保债权实现的条件——除了当债务人不履行到期债务之外，还包括当事人约定的情形，扩展了保证合同意思自治的范围。 总结来说，结合《民法典》第388条的规定：“担保合同是主债权债务合同的从合同”，保证合同具有从属性，系依附于主合同的从合同，但在实务中需注意银行或者非银行金融机构之外的当事人开立的独立保函的例外。保证合同具有补充性，是为督促债务人对债务的履行，以债务人不履行到期债务或发生当事人约定的情形为生效要件，并具有人身性，存在于债权人和保证人之间，以保证人的信誉为基础。 (二) 保证合同的内容和形式
2020年最新担保法司法解释. 第一，澄清了担保法的模糊规定。主要表现在以下六个方面： 1.明确了反担保的规定 反担保是被担保的债务人或第三人为确保担保人承担担保责任后对债务人权利的实现而设定的担保。对于反担保，司法解释主要明确了两个问题：一是反担保人的范围，担保法司法解释规定反担保人可以是债务人，也可以是债务人之外的其他人。二是反映担保的方式，《担保法司法解释》明确规定：“反担保方式可以是债务人提供的抵押或者质押，也可以是其他人提供的保证、抵押、质押。” 2.合同变更对保证责任的影响 关于合同变更与保证人的责任，《担保法》第24条规定：“债权人与债务人协议变更主合同的，应当取得保证人书面同意，未经保证人书面同意的，保证人不再承担保证责任。”对于这一规定，实践中的理解很不一致。有人认为，凡变更主合同的，未经保证人书面同意，保证人就不承担保证责任;有人认为，只有在主合同客体和内容变更时，未经保证人书面同意的，保证人才不承担保证责任;还有人认为，担保法规定的变更合同，是指合同更新。对此，《担保法司法解释》第30条作了详细的说明，这一解释可以分为三种情况第一，保证期间，债权人与债务人对主合同数量、价款、币种、利率等内容作了
变动，未经保证人同意的，如果减轻债务人的债务的，保证人仍应当对变更后的合同承担保证责任;如果加重债务人债务的，保证人对加重的部分不承担保证责任。这一解释符合保证责任的附随性原理。但这里只是规定了合同的内容变更的情况，而没有包括合同标的的变更。因此，变更合同标的的，未经保证人书面同意的，保证人不承担保证责任。 第二，债权人与债务人对主合同履行期限作了变动，未经保证人书面同意的，保证期间为原合同约定的或法律规定的期间。 第三，债权人与债务人协议变动主合同内容，但并未实际履行的，保证人仍应当承担保证责任。例如，主合同双方当事人虽然协商对主合同的部分进行了变更，但双方并没有按照变更后的内容履行，虽然变更未经保证人的同意，保证人仍然应当承担责任。 3.混合共同担保 混合共同担保是对同一债权既有保证，又有抵押、质押担保的情况，也就是人的担保与物的担保混合。关于混合共同担保，《担保法》第28条规定：“同一债权既有保证又有物的担保的，保证人对物的担保以外的债权承担保证责任;债权人放弃物的担保的，保证人在债权人放弃权利的范围内免除保证责任。”对这一规定，实践中理解不一，主要分歧在于物的担保的提供人是谁。我认为，《担保法》第28条的规定，应仅指
担保法的理解与适用之一：总则部分 第一部分总则 《担保法》：第一条为促进资金融通和商品流通，保障债权的实现，发展社会主义市场经济，制定本法。此系立法宗旨之规定。在这一条法律规定中，正如lawzeng所言，“在债权债务担保法律关系中，在债权人、债务人、担保人三方权利保护的价值取向与价值判断上应当做出什么样的抉择和平衡，这是担保法的首要问题”。我国担保法做出了更为有利于债权人的选择。其目的是为了保护交易安全以促进财产的流转从而有利于社会财富的增加。第二条在借贷、买卖、货物运输、加工承揽等经济活动中，债权人需要以担保方式保障其债权实现的，可以依照本法规定设定担保。本法规定的担保方式为保证、抵押、质押、留置和定金。在此条法律规定中，立法者采取了列举式的立法方式，对此，在司法实践中会产生一种误会，认为上述所列之外的民商事行为不适用担保法，为了消除此误会，最高人民法院通过司法解释予以了澄清： 《担保法解释》：第1条当事人对由民事关系产生的债权，在不违反法律、法规强制性规定的情况下，以担保法规定的方式设定担保的，可以认定为有效。这一条是对担保方式适用范围的解释,具体有以下三方面的意思：一担保方式适用于民商事行为，这就排除了国家经济管理行为（包括行政行为和司法行为）产生的债权债务对担保法的适用。二适用民商事活动中产生的有债权债权关系内容的行为。这就排除了因人格．身份关系而产生的债权债务关系对担保法的适用。三适用民商事法律行为所产生的债权债务关系，排除了不当得利．无因管理之债对担保法的适用。这里需要说明的是，因侵权行为．不当得利．无因管理产生的债权，虽然不能先行设定担保方式来加以保障，但是因上述行为已经产生的债权，属于普通债权，是可以用担保方式来保障偿还。 《担保法》：第三条担保活动应当遵循平等、自愿、公平、诚实信用的原则。这一条系对担保法所应遵循的基本原则的规定，与《民法通则》所确立的基本原则相一致。第四条第三人为债务人向债权人提供担保时，可以要求债务人提供反担保。反担保适用本法担保的规定。这一条是担保法关于反担保的规定，因为这一条款规定的比较原则，为便于理解和执行，最高人民法院在司法解释中对其进行了细化： 《担保法解释》：第2条反担保人可以是债务人，也可以是债务人之外的其他人。反担保方式可以是债务人提供的抵押或者质押，也可以是其他人提供的保证、抵押或者质押。在这一条法律规定中，我们需注意的是担保与反担保的区别，其区别主要有以下几点：一、担保关系中，存在三方当事人，债权人．债务人．担保人；在反担保关系中一般存在反担保人（债务人）和被担保人（原担保人）两方；二、担保关系中担保人因承诺而负担债务，其负债是或有负债，也就是说，当债务人到期偿还债务的话，担保人的债务自然免除；反担保关系中的反担保人对担保人的负债是既成的．真实的负债，因为担保人只有在已经代债务人向债权人履行债务的前提下，才能向债务人（即反担保人）要求其承担反担保责任，所以，反担保人对担保人的负债是既成的．必然的。三、担保关系和反担保关系中，担保人和被担保人的地位对调，在担保关系中是担保人的，在反担保关系中成为被担保人，反之亦然。这里还应注意反担保与再担保的区别，所谓再担保，是指为担保人设立的担保。当担保人不能独立承担担保责任时，再担保人将代替担保人向债权人继续剩余的清偿，以保证债权的实现。反担保与再担保的主要区别是，再担保关系中，债权人始终是权利人，债务人始终是被担保人，担保人和再担保人均为债务人向债权人负责。各方当事人的地位不发生对调和变化。 另外，在承担责任上，担保人和再担保人分一个次序，即担保人先承担责任，在担保人无力承担时，再由再担保人承担。其特点类似再保险。从反担保之性质可知，在债务人本人作为反担保人时，反担保方式一般不选择保证方式，因为债务人本身就对担保人负责，再设定保证来担保，等于债务人自己为自己提供保证，没有任何现实意义，不利于债权的实现。还有，因法律规定而产生的担保，不能作为反担保的方式，如留置．法定抵押权等。因为它们是因法律的直接规定而设立的，与当事人的意思表示无关，不属于依法律行为设立的担保方式。从其产生的方式来看，法定担保也不可能运用在反担保中，因为当事人在其间不能预见债权的发生以及是否符合法定担保的条件。 《担保法》：第五条担保合同是主合同的从合同，主合同无效，担保合同无效。担保合同另有约定的，按照约定。担保合同被确认无效后，债务人、担保人、债权人有过错的，应当根据其过错各自承担相应的民事责任。首先，这一条款中最为重要的是其但书条款。因为在这一但书条款中，我国立法承认了独立担保的法律地位。独立保证是适应国际商业界和金融界的商业实践和国际惯例而产生的一种新的类型的担保方式。独立担保与从属担保的区别在
担保法司法解释中的几个重要问题 担保是保障债权实现、救济债权损失的法律手段，是重要的民事法律制度，在民商法律制度中具有重要的地位。担保法跨越物权法、债权法两个法域，几乎涉及民事法律体系的各个方面。我国担保法律规范最早散见于法律法规、司法解释和部门规章中，民法通则、经济合同法规定的债的担保非常原则，未能形成完整的体系，使担保法律制度并未真正发挥作用。《中华人民共和国担保法》的颁布施行，标志着我国物权和债权制度的完善，在我国的担保法律制度中处于核心地位，发挥着承上启下的作用。由于商品经济关系的复杂性，没有物权法作基础，担保法的规定仍比较原则，在审判实践中不仅引起理论上的争议，也造成适用法律的困惑和难以操作，影响了司法的严肃性和统一性。 ２０００年１２月１３日施行的最高人民法院《关于适用〈中华人民共和国担保法〉若干问题的解释》（以下简称《解释》）坚持了以下原则：《解释》应当是对现行担保法有关问题的解释，原则上不超出担保法现有条文的范围，以使其具有针对性和避免与法律冲突；《解释》仅应对审判实践中出现的有关担保法的适用问题进行解释，而对审判中未出现的问题，尽管理论上需要明确，但没有必要予以规定；《解释》与物权法关系密切，所以对于某些需要由将来的物权法规定的内容不予规定；《解释》与民法通则、合同法、公司法、票据法、证券法、不动产法、知识产权法、证据法以及民事诉讼法等紧密联系、互相交叉，因此，凡是有关这些法律的问题都不涉及，由相关法律的司法解释去解决。为了在审判实践中准确理解和正确适用《解释》，我们对其中的几个主要问题作以下论述。 一、担保合同无效的法律后果 担保合同无效后的赔偿范围，在审判实践中没有统一的执法标准，出现了几种承担赔偿责任的情况。司法解释的规定也不明确，例如，１９８８年最高人民法院《关于贯彻执行民法通则若干问题的意见（试行）》第１１１条规定：“被担保的经济合同确认无效后，如果被保证人应当返还财产或者赔偿损失，除有特殊约定外，保证人仍应承担连带责任。”此条解释没有区分保证人是否有过错或者过错大小，保证人都应承担连带责任或者赔偿责任，与担保法第五条的规定有冲突。《解释》规定担保合同无效后，担保人承担连带赔偿责任；担保法第五条规定担保合同被确认无效后，当事人应当根据其过错各自承担相应的民事责任。《解释》规定的责任重于担保法。担保合同被确认无效后，担保人的担保责任解除。但是，担保责任解除并不等于什么责任都不承担。担保人承担责任的前提条件是担保人有过错，对担保无效而产生的损害赔偿，应当根据过错责任原则，确定应否承担赔偿责任。造成担保无效的原因是多种多样的，因此无效担保的后果也是不同的。根据民法通则、合同法和担保法的有关规定，无效合同当事人的缔约过失责任范围取决于债权人因担保合同无效所造成的损失、担保人和债权人对无效合同的过错程度等因素。因此，《解释》根据不同情况作了相应的规定。 （一）主合同有效而担保合同无效后当事人承担责任的份额 担保合同无效的原因有多种，其中担保合同因主合同无效而无效的情况很多，因为按照担保法的规定，担保合同是主合同的从合同，主合同无效，担保合同也无效。但是担保合同因自身原因无效的情况也属常见。所谓担保合同因自身原因而无效，指担保合同因欠缺有效要件而归于无效，与主合同的效力状态无关。《解释》第７条所针对的就是担保合同无效而主合同有效的情况，分两种情形作出责任份额上的规定。一是主合同有效而担保合同无效，债权人无过错的，担保人与债务人对主合同债权人的经济损失承
(Adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court at its No.1133 Conference on September 29, 2000) For the purpose of ensuring the correct application of the Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "the Guarantee Law"), based on the judicial practice and experience, the following interpretations have been made concerning the application of laws while the people's courts are handling the guarantee disputes . Part IInterpretation of General Principles Article 1A guarantee created by the parties for the creditor's rights arising from civil relations may be considered valid if it conforms to the forms stipulated in the Guarantee law and does not violate any compulsory provision in laws and regulations. Article 2Counter-guarantee provider may be the debtor or some other parties. The form of counter-guarantee may be mortgage or pledge offered by the debtor, or guarantee, mortgage or pledge offered by some other parties. Article 3Where any state organ or any institution, social organization for the public good violates laws to provide guarantee, the guarantee contract shall be invalid. And it shall be punished pursuant to Article 5 (2) of the Guarantee Law if any loss is caused to the creditors. Article 4Where any director or manager violates Article 60 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China to provide guarantee for the debt of the company's shareholders or other persons, the guarantee contract shall be invalid. The debtor and the guarantee provider shall bear joint compensation liability for creditor's loss unless the creditor knows or should know about the fact. Article 5Where a guarantee is created with the property that is prohibited by laws and regulations from circulating, or is not transferable, the guarantee contract shall be invalid. Where a guarantee is created with the property restricted by laws and regulations from circulating, the people's court shall dispose of the property to realize the creditor's rights in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.