摘要： 就混合共同担保中担保人之间的内部求偿关系，我国司法实践大多基于《担保法司法解释》第38条予以承认。但仅基于公平等原则而作出此种推断，欠缺说服力，类推适用连带债务等规定，允许其相互之间直接求偿的学说继而被提出。在担保人之间欠缺相互担保的直接意思的场合，此种解释论仍是着眼于对其相互之间的意思自治屏障的直接刺破，并无法真正弥合围绕《物权法》第176条所产生的学说争议。对此，在以《担保法司法解释》第38条作为请求权基础的同时，仍应坚持最高人民法院在司法判决中的基本论断，以代位求偿为基础对该条重新加以解释，将代位权理论予以“回填”并补全其内涵。

关键词: 混合共同担保, 内部求偿, 连带债务, 债权地位转移, 代位求偿

Abstract: According to the judicial practice in China, the right of recourse in the mixed joint guarantee has been recognized based on Article 38 of Judicial Interpretation on Security Law.The conclusion, only based on the principle of justice, is not convincible.Thus, the viewpoint on the right of internal recourse among security providers was proposed.In other words, regulations on the right of recourse among solidary debtors should be applied to relationships among security providers by analogy.Such an interpretation still focused on internal relationships among security providers although they didn't mean to provide security for each other.However, considering the doctrinal errors existing in the viewpoint, it couldn't be treated as the solution to disputes over Article 176 of Property Law.Therefore, as to the interpretation of Article 38 of Judicial Interpretation on Security Law, arguments in the judgment made by supreme court should be persisted.And the recourse among security providers should be based on the right of subrogation.

Key words: Mixed Joint Guarantee, Internal Recourse, Solidary Debt, Assignment of Right to Performance, Right of Subrogation