摘要
什么是连带责任?原告对于承担连带责任的被告如何行使请求权?承担连带责任后的被告人之间如何分担责任?对于这些问题,我国立法、学理和判例存在很大的分歧,例如,《民法通则》与《合伙企业法》中的连带责任的概念就不同,在《合伙企业法》中,一方面规定合伙人对合伙企业债务承担连带责任,另一方面却规定先由合伙企业财产支付,实际上赋予承担连带责任的合伙人对债权人"先诉抗辩权"。在司法实践中,法院,甚至是最高人民法院的判决对连带责任的认识也很不一致。这种分歧和不一致不仅会给学术研究带来不便,更重要的是引起司法实践的混乱。从罗马法以来,连带之债就具有其质的内在规定性,表现在:主体的多数性和平等性、发生原因的同一性、给付的同一性、消灭上的整体性、可求偿性等。后来的《德国民法典》及《日本民法典》等都坚持了这些特征,而我国民法在继受过程中,变化了连带责任的概念和基本的内涵,造成了立法、学理和司法实践的不统一性。我们也应该坚持传统民法关于连带责任的内在规定性,认真纠正我国有些理论、立法和司法实践中关于连带责任的错误认识和做法。
What is joint liability? For plaintiffs, how to claim against defendants of joint liability? For defendants, how to distribute responsibilities after performing the obligations? Legislation, academics and judicial precedents are dissent about these questions. For example, the conception of joint liability differs in the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Partnership Enterprise Law of the People’s Republic of China. On one hand, the'Partnership Enterprise Law'provides that partners shall bear joint liability for the debts of the partnership enterprise; on the other hand, it stipulates that the partnership enterprise shall first pay with all of its properties, which entitles the partners to the right of discussion. In judicial practice, judgments involving the joint liability, even those by the Supreme People’s Court, are not unanimous. The divergences of holdings are not only inconvenient to academics, but also confuse the judicial practice. The joint liability has intrinsic principles since the Rome law, which embody in the pluralism and equality of subjects, the identity of causes, the congruity of prestation, the integrity of vanishing, and the claimable nature, etc. These characteristics are inherited by both the German Civil Code and the Civil Code of Japan; nevertheless, the conception and connotation of joint liability are altered in its introduction to and adoption by China, which gives rise to discrepancies in legislation, academics and practice. Therefore, the intrinsic principles in traditional civil laws shall be inherited so that the misunderstandings and misapplications of joint liability in academics, legislation and judicial practice in China could be rectified.
出处
《中国政法大学学报》
2011年第2期80-88,159,共9页
Journal Of CUPL
作者简介
李永军（1964-），男．山东滨州人，中国政法大学教授、法学博士。研究方向为破产法、民法总论、合同法、物权法、侵权责任法。
