Joint liability - Rentaisaimu

Japanese: 連帯債務 - れんたいさいむ

It is defined as a debt between multiple parties, in which several debtors are each independently obligated to make the entire payment for the same performance, and if one of them makes a performance, the other debtors are relieved of their obligation (Civil Code Articles 432 to 445). It is sometimes called joint liability, but this is not an accurate term. For example, if three people, A, B, and C, borrow 900,000 yen from D and are jointly obligated to repay it, A, B, and C must each pay 900,000 yen to D independently, and if any of A, B, or C pays 900,000 yen, the others are relieved of their obligation. In this way, in a joint liability, multiple debtors are obligated to make payments for the entire debt, not just a divided portion of it, so if even one of the debtors has the financial means, the creditor can receive full repayment of the debt. Therefore, joint liability can be said to be a personal means of securing a debt.

[Takahisa Awaji]

Comparison with similar schemes

When we look at joint and several obligations from the perspective of the form of obligation attribution - that is, the legal form in which several debtors are each independently liable for the entire performance obligation - we see that they are the same as several other systems, so the differences between them become an issue. For example, a joint guarantee is similar to a joint and several obligation. However, a joint guarantee is a type of guarantee and is subordinate (if there is no principal debt, there is no joint guarantee obligation) and is distinguished from a joint and several obligation. An indivisible obligation is also similar to a joint and several obligation in that each debtor is liable for the entire performance obligation. However, unlike a joint and several obligation, this is because the performance is indivisible by nature or by the manifestation of intention, and its effect does not have the absolute effect of Articles 434 to 439 of the Civil Code, and it differs from a joint and several obligation in that it does not have the absolute effect of Articles 434 to 439 of the Civil Code. In the case of an untrue joint and several obligation, a relationship similar to a joint and several obligation arises. For example, in the case of employer liability, the employee is liable for the entire compensation under Article 709 of the Civil Code and the employer is liable for the entire compensation under Article 715 of the Civil Code, and if either party performs, the other party is relieved of the obligation. In this respect, it is exactly the same as joint and several obligations. However, in the case of quasi-joint and several obligations, there is no subjective joint relationship between the debtors, and therefore, Article 434 of the Civil Code does not have absolute effect, so it is considered to be different from joint and several obligations.

[Takahisa Awaji]

Cause

The Civil Code makes the principle of multiple party obligations divisible (Article 427). Therefore, joint and several obligations arise when there is an expression of joint intention (contract, will) or when there is a legal provision that provides for joint obligations (for example, Articles 44, Paragraph 2 and 761 of the Civil Code, Article 511, Paragraph 1 of the Commercial Code, etc.).

[Takahisa Awaji]

External effectiveness

A creditor may demand full or partial performance from one of the joint debtors, or from all debtors simultaneously or successively (Article 432 of the Civil Code). This is the central effect of joint debt as a means of securing credit. In the event of payment or an event equivalent thereto (for example, payment in kind or deposit) occurring with respect to one of the joint debtors, the other debtors are also relieved of their debts. In addition, certain events (Articles 434-439 of the Civil Code) have so-called absolute effect that also have an effect on the other debtors. In other words, a claim against one of the joint debtors has an effect on the other debtors, and in the event of a novation, offset, or confusion between one of the joint debtors and the creditor, the other debtors are also relieved of their debts, and in the event of a release from one of the joint debtors or the completion of the prescription for one of the joint debtors, the other debtors are also relieved of their debts to the extent of the debtor's share of the debt. For example, if the burden of each of the three parties in the previous example is 300,000 yen each, and if A is exempted or the statute of limitations expires for A, the debts of B and C will be 600,000 yen. In addition, in academic terms, a joint debt with a wide range of absolute effect grounds is called a joint and several debt (the opposite is called a simple solidarity).

[Takahisa Awaji]

Internal effectiveness

When one of the joint debtors obtains a joint discharge of all debtors through his/her own contribution (giving financial benefit to another person), he/she may seek reimbursement from the other debtors according to his/her share of the debt (Civil Code Article 442, Paragraph 1). For example, in the previous example, if Person A pays 900,000 yen, Person B and Person C can each seek reimbursement of 300,000 yen. The share of the debt is primarily determined by a special agreement between the joint debtors, and if there is no special agreement, it is determined according to the proportion of the benefit received by bearing the joint debt, and if that is also unknown, it is determined to be an equal proportion.

[Takahisa Awaji]

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

数人の債務者が、同一内容の給付について各自独立に全部の給付をなす義務を負い、そのうちの1人の給付があれば、他の債務者も債務を免れる多数当事者の債務、と定義される（民法432条～445条）。連帯責任ということもあるが、正確な呼び方ではない。たとえば、甲、乙、丙の3人が丁から90万円を借り、その返済について連帯債務を負うと、甲、乙、丙は、各自独立に90万円を丁に支払わなければならず、甲、乙、丙のいずれかが90万円を支払うと、他の者も債務を免れることになる。このように連帯債務では、複数の債務者がそれぞれ債務の分割された一部ではなく、全部について給付義務を負うから、債務者のなかに1人でも資力のある者がいれば、債権者は、債権の十分な弁済を受けることができる。したがって、連帯債務は人的な債権担保手段であるといえる。

［淡路剛久］

類似の制度との比較

連帯債務を、債務の帰属形式――すなわち数人の債務者が各自独立に全部の給付義務を負うという法形式――からみると、いくつかの制度と同じになるので、それらとの違いが問題となる。たとえば連帯保証は、連帯債務と類似する。しかし、連帯保証は保証の一種であって付従性を有する（主たる債務が存在しなければ、連帯保証債務も存在しない）点で、連帯債務と区別される。不可分債務も、各債務者が全部の給付義務を負う点で連帯債務と類似する。しかし、それは、連帯債務と違って、給付が性質上または意思表示により不可分だからであり、その効力も民法第434条ないし第439条の絶対的効力を生じない点で、連帯債務と異なる。不真正連帯債務の場合にも、連帯債務と同様の関係が生じる。たとえば、使用者責任の場合、被用者は民法第709条により、使用者は民法第715条により、それぞれ全部賠償義務を負い、いずれかの履行があれば、他の者は債務を免れる。この点、連帯債務とまったく同一である。しかし、不真正連帯債務の場合には、債務者間に主観的共同関係がなく、したがって、民法第434条の絶対的効力が生じない点で、連帯債務とは違う、とされる。

［淡路剛久］

発生原因

民法は多数当事者の債務の原則を分割債務とした（427条）。したがって、連帯の意思表示（契約、遺言）があるか、連帯とする旨の法律の規定（たとえば、民法44条2項・761条、商法511条1項など）がある場合に、連帯債務が生じることになる。

［淡路剛久］

対外的効力

債権者は、連帯債務者の1人に対し、または同時もしくは順次に総債務者に対し、全部または一部の履行を請求することができる（民法432条）。この点が債権担保手段としての連帯債務の中心的な効力である。連帯債務者の1人について弁済およびこれと同視すべき事由（たとえば、代物弁済・供託）が生じた場合には、他の債務者も債務を免れる。そのほか、一定の事由（同法434条～439条）は、他の債務者にも効力を及ぼす、いわゆる絶対的効力を生ずる。すなわち、連帯債務者の1人に対する請求は他の債務者に対してもその効力を生じ、連帯債務者の1人と債権者との間に更改、相殺、混同があった場合には、他の債務者も債務を免れ、連帯債務者の1人に対して免除がなされ、あるいは連帯債務者の1人のために時効が完成した場合には、その債務者の負担部分につき他の債務者も債務を免れる。たとえば、前例の甲、乙、丙の負担部分をそれぞれ30万円ずつとした場合、甲に対して免除し、あるいは甲について時効が完成すると、乙、丙の債務は60万円となる。なお、以上のように絶対的効力事由の広い連帯債務を講学上、共同連帯とよんでいる（その反対を単純連帯という）。

［淡路剛久］

対内的効力

連帯債務者の1人が、自分の出捐(しゅつえん)（他人に財産上の利益を与えること）で総債務者の共同の免責を得たときには、他の債務者に対しその負担部分に応じて求償することができる（民法442条1項）。たとえば、前例で甲が90万円弁済した場合には、乙、丙からそれぞれ30万円ずつ求償できる。負担部分は、第一次的には連帯債務者間の特約によって定まり、特約がないときには連帯債務を負担することによって受けた利益の割合に従い、それもまた不明であるときには平等の割合とされる。

［淡路剛久］

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例

<<: Rendaiji Temple [Hot Springs] - Rendaiji Temple

>>: Regiment - Ren-tai (English spelling) regiment