부진정연대채무에서는 1인에 대한 채무면제는 다른 채무자에게 영향을 미치지 않는다는 것이 판례의 입장이다. 따라서 채권자는 다른 채무자게 채무전액의 변제를 청구할 수 있고, 자신의 부담부분을 넘어서 변제한 채무자는 피면제자를 상대로 구상권을 행사할 수 있다고 한다. 그런데 면제의 상대적 효력을 인정하면서도, 구상의무를 이행한 피면제자가 채권자에게 부당이득반환을 청구할 수 있다고 하는 견해도 있다. 그러나 상대적 효력을 인정하는 이유가 채권자의 보호라면, 상대적 효력을 인정하면서 다시 구상순환을 인정하는 것은 그 취지에 반한다. 한편, 다수의 학자는 부진정연대채무자 중 1인에 대한 면제가 부담부분형 절대적 효력을 가져야 한다고 주장한다. 해석의 일반법칙이라는 관점에서는 이러한 주장이 더 설득력이 있다고 생각된다. 한 채무자를 면제시키려면, 구상의무로부터도 면제시켜야 하고 이를 위해서는 종국적인 경제적 부담을 채권자가 지는 부담부분형 절대적 효력이 인정되어야 하기 때문이다. 다만 판결사례들을 살펴보면, 피해자(채권자)가 면제를 하면서 이로 인해서 다른 채무자에게 행사할 채권액이 줄어든다는 생각을 하지 않은 경우가 대부분인 것으로 보인다. 따라서 부진정연대채무에서는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 면제의 상대적 효력을 인정하는 것이 더 적절해 보인다(면제의 상대적 효력 우선). 다만 채권자가 피면제자의 종국적인 면제를 원했다고 인정되는 경우에는 ‘부담부분형 절대적 효력’을 인정해야 할 것이다. 그리고 종국적인 면제를 인정하기 위한 일응의 기준으로는 그 면제가 합리적인 거래상 이익을 얻기 위한 것이었는지를 심사해 볼 수 있을 것이다.
In Quasi Joint and Several Obligation, according to the precedent a release of one debtor does not affect other debtors. Therefore, the creditor can claim the full amount of the debt from the other debtor, and the debtor who has paid more than the debtor's share can exercise the right of indemnification against the released debtor. There are an opinion that in case of relative effect the released debtor may demand the return of unjust enrichment from the creditor in case of indemnification. However, this result runs counter to the purpose of relative effect theory. On the other hand, many scholars argue that the release of one debtor should have absolute effect to the extent of share. According to the general rule of interpretation of representations, this argument is considered more persuasive. Because the debtor can be said to be truly exempted only when he is exempted from the obligation to indemnify. However in most cases of judgment it seems that the creditor did not think that the amount of debt would be reduced as a result of the release. Therefore it seems more appropriate to acknowledge the relative effect of release unless there are special circumstances. However, if the creditor wanted a final release, the absolute effect to the extent of share will have to be acknowledged. And if the release was for a reasonable transactional benefit, a final release could be acknowledged.
In Quasi Joint and Several Obligation, according to the precedent a release of one debtor does not affect other debtors. Therefore, the creditor can claim the full amount of the debt from the other debtor, and the debtor who has paid more than the debtor's share can exercise the right of indemnification against the released debtor. There are an opinion that in case of relative effect the released debtor may demand the return of unjust enrichment from the creditor in case of indemnification. However, this result runs counter to the purpose of relative effect theory. On the other hand, many scholars argue that the release of one debtor should have absolute effect to the extent of share. According to the general rule of interpretation of representations, this argument is considered more persuasive. Because the debtor can be said to be truly exempted only when he is exempted from the obligation to indemnify. However in most cases of judgment it seems that the creditor did not think that the amount of debt would be reduced as a result of the release. Therefore it seems more appropriate to acknowledge the relative effect of release unless there are special circumstances. However, if the creditor wanted a final release, the absolute effect to the extent of share will have to be acknowledged. And if the release was for a reasonable transactional benefit, a final release could be acknowledged.