答辩人：A公司，住所地台州市路桥区XXXXX号。

法定代表人：XXX，总经理。

答辩人因与被答辩人B、C、原审被告D公司（以下简称D公司）为追偿权纠纷一案，现提出答辩意见如下：

一、原审法院采用的送达方式符合法律的规定。

答辩人认为，原审法院在案件的审理过程中使用的送达方式是合理、合法的。原审法院首先采用的是邮寄送达的方式，邮寄的地址就是两被答辩人的户籍所在地，但是经寄送机关的多次投递仍无法正常送达。在此基础上，人民法院在收到邮局退回的邮件之后，只得采用公告送达的方式，这样的操作方式符合《民诉法》关于公告送达的规定，也合乎常理。

二、答辩人依法有权向D公司行使担保追偿权，且两被答辩人应承担连带责任。

D公司经答辩人担保共对外举债260万，这一事实有多份生效法律文书加以证实，答辩人不再赘述。同时，经答辩人的举证和各个债权人的证明，也足以证实答辩人至今已为D公司承担了210.18万的担保责任。根据《担保法》第三十一条的规定，答辩人有权在承担了担保责任之后向D公司行使追偿权。

两被答辩人作为D公司的控股股东，在公司被吊销营业执照出现法定解散事由之后，未在法律规定的期限之内成立清算组，且至今未进行清算，依法应承担无法清算的连带清偿责任。

三、答辩人的担保追偿权未超过诉讼时效。

根据民法通则的规定，诉讼时效应当从知道权利被侵害之日起计算两年，同时《担保法解释》第42条第2款也规定：保证人对债务人行使追偿权的诉讼时效，自保证人向债权人承担保证责任之日起开始计算。答辩人认为，无论从哪一个条款来理解，答辩人的担保追偿权都没有超过诉讼时效。

1、关于知道权利被侵害之日的确定问题。本案的时间跨度较大，但这也从一个方面反映出，答辩人无法确定自身权利是否被侵害以及具体的侵害后果。本案的实际情况是D公司一直没有进行清算，答辩人无法知晓D公司是否有能力支付相应的债务或者有无财产可供执行。在这样的认识基础上，答辩人在承担保证责任的时候采取了连续支付的方式，就是出于无法确定具体损失的考虑。因此，答辩人认为，本案的诉讼时效应当自具体的损失确定之日起开始计算。而直至今日，各债权人仍在以不同的方式连续得向答辩人催款，答辩人最终将要承担的保证责任至今都没有得到确定，显然答辩人的追偿权不会出现超过诉讼时效的情况。

2、对“承担保证责任”的理解问题。《担保法解释》规定：追偿权的诉讼时效自保证人向债权人“承担保证责任”之日起开始计算。对于“承担保证责任”这一表述如何理解将直接影响到诉讼时效的确定问题。答辩人认为，无论是从条文字面上还是从立法精神、实践操作等方面来考虑，该表述都应当理解为“完全履行了全部保证责任”。

首先，从字面上来理解，“承担保证责任”中的“保证责任”本身就应当包括主债务的本金、利息以及约定的实现债权费用、相关的诉讼费用、执行费用等一系列依法全部应由保证人承担的责任。在没有完全履行之前，都不能认定保证人“已经承担了保证责任”。

其次，从立法精神上来理解。保证人承担责任是基于对债务人提供的保证担保，保证人在这一法律关系中仅有义务而没有权利。因此答辩人认为，关于追偿权的相关规定，其立法本意是为了平衡双方的权利义务关系，保护保证人的权利。如果对分期、多次履行的保证责任分别从履行之日起计算时效的话，显然不利于对保证人权利的保护，违背了立法的本意。同时，《最高院关于审理民事案件适用诉讼时效制度若干问题的规定》针对类似情况也作出了明确的规定“当事人约定同一债务分期履行的，诉讼时效期间从最后一期履行期限届满之日起计算。”虽然该条文有一个“当事人约定同一债务分期履行” 的前提条件，但其立法精神与《担保法解释》的相关规定是一致的。

最后，从司法实践出发，“承担保证责任”也应当理解为“完全履行了全部保证责任”。现实生活中，保证人分期、多次履行保证责任的情况较为常见。在这样的情况下，如果均要求保证人根据每一期的履行情况分别计算诉讼时效的话，则必将会造成保证人为了在时效内起诉，不得不多次提起诉讼的局面。如此一来，不但会给当事人造成不必要的诉累，也会对司法资源造成不必要的浪费。

综上意见，答辩人认为，答辩人有权向D公司行使追偿权且答辩人的追偿权尚在时效内，两被答辩人依法应承担连带清偿责任，请求人民法院驳回被答辩人的请求。

答辩人：A公司

二〇一三年九月二日

Respondent: Company A, domiciled at No. XXXXX, Luqiao District, Taizhou City.

Legal representative: XXX, General Manager.

The respondent hereby submits the following defense opinions in the case of a dispute over the right of recovery between the respondent B, C, and the original defendant D Company (hereinafter referred to as D Company):

1、 The delivery method adopted by the original trial court complies with the provisions of the law.

The respondent believes that the service method used by the original trial court during the trial process of the case is reasonable and legal. The Court of First Instance first used the method of mail service. The mail address was the registered residence of the two respondents. However, after multiple deliveries by the sending authority, the service could not be delivered normally. On this basis, after receiving the returned mail from the post office, the people's court can only use the method of public announcement service, which is in line with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law on public announcement service and also in line with common sense.

2、 The respondent has the right to exercise the right of guarantee and recovery from Company D in accordance with the law, and the two defendants shall bear joint and several liability.

Company D has raised a total of 2.6 million yuan in external debt guaranteed by the respondent, which has been confirmed by multiple effective legal documents. The respondent will not elaborate further. At the same time, the evidence provided by the respondent and the proofs of various creditors are sufficient to confirm that the respondent has undertaken a guarantee liability of 2.118 million yuan for Company D. According to Article 31 of the Guarantee Law, the respondent has the right to exercise the right of recourse against Company D after assuming the guarantee liability.

The two defendants, as the controlling shareholders of Company D, failed to establish a liquidation team within the legally prescribed time limit after the company's business license was revoked due to legal reasons for dissolution, and have not yet carried out liquidation. They should bear joint and several liability for liquidated damages that cannot be liquidated in accordance with the law.

3、 The defendant's right to guarantee and recover has not exceeded the statute of limitations.

According to the General Principles of the Civil Law, the statute of limitations for litigation shall be calculated for two years from the date of knowing that the right has been infringed. At the same time, Article 42 (2) of the Interpretation of the Guarantee Law also stipulates that the statute of limitations for the guarantor to exercise the right of recourse against the debtor shall be calculated from the date when the guarantor assumes the guarantee responsibility to the creditor. The respondent believes that regardless of which clause to interpret, the respondent's right to guarantee and recover has not exceeded the statute of limitations.

1. Regarding the determination of the date when one's rights are infringed upon. The time span of this case is relatively large, but it also reflects from one aspect that the respondent is unable to determine whether their rights have been violated and the specific consequences of the infringement. The actual situation of this case is that Company D has not been liquidated, and the respondent cannot know whether Company D has the ability to pay the corresponding debts or whether there is property available for execution. On the basis of this understanding, the respondent adopted the method of continuous payment when assuming the guarantee responsibility, which was due to the consideration of not being able to determine the specific loss. Therefore, the respondent believes that the statute of limitations in this case should be calculated from the date of determining the specific losses. Until today, various creditors are still continuously demanding payment from the defendant in different ways, and the guarantee responsibility that the defendant will ultimately bear has not been determined. Obviously, the defendant's right to recover will not exceed the statute of limitations.

2. The understanding of "assuming warranty responsibility". The Interpretation of the Guarantee Law stipulates that the statute of limitations for the right of recourse shall be calculated from the date when the guarantor "assumes the guarantee responsibility" to the creditor. How to understand the expression "assuming guarantee responsibility" will directly affect the determination of the statute of limitations for litigation. The respondent believes that whether considered from the literal terms of the article or from the legislative spirit, practical operation, etc., this expression should be understood as "fully fulfilling all guarantee responsibilities".

First of all, literally, the "guarantee liability" in "undertaking guarantee liability" should itself include the principal and interest of the principal debt, as well as the agreed cost of realizing the creditor's rights, related litigation costs, execution costs and a series of liabilities that should be borne by the guarantor according to law. Until it is fully fulfilled, the guarantor cannot be deemed to have "assumed the guarantee responsibility".

Secondly, understand it from the perspective of legislative spirit. The guarantor's liability is based on the guarantee provided to the debtor, and the guarantor has only obligations and no rights in this legal relationship. Therefore, the respondent believes that the legislative intent of the relevant provisions on the right of recourse is to balance the rights and obligations of both parties and protect the rights of the guarantor. If the guarantee liability for installment and multiple performance is calculated from the date of performance, it is obviously not conducive to protecting the rights of the guarantor and goes against the original intention of legislation. At the same time, the "Provisions of the Supreme Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Litigation Limitation System in the Trial of Civil Cases" also makes clear provisions for similar situations: "If the parties agree to perform the same debt in installments, the litigation limitation period shall be calculated from the date of the expiration of the last performance period." Although this provision has a prerequisite for "the parties agree to perform the same debt in installments, But its legislative spirit is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Interpretation of the Guarantee Law.

Finally, from the perspective of judicial practice, "assuming guarantee responsibility" should also be understood as "fully fulfilling all guarantee responsibilities". In real life, it is common for the guarantor to fulfill the guarantee responsibility in installments and multiple times. In such a situation, if the guarantor is required to calculate the statute of limitations separately based on the performance of each period, it will inevitably result in the guarantor having to file multiple lawsuits in order to sue within the statute of limitations. In this way, not only will it cause unnecessary litigation burden to the parties, but it will also cause unnecessary waste of judicial resources.

In summary, the respondent believes that the respondent has the right to exercise the right of recourse against Company D and that the respondent's right of recourse is still within the time limit. The two defendants should bear joint and several liability for repayment in accordance with the law, and requests the people's court to reject the respondent's request.

Defendant: Company A

September 2, 2013