近年来，针对混合共同担保的内部追偿权的难题，民法领域的学者对于内部追偿权之存否有较大的意见分歧，出现了肯定说与否定说并立的局面。尽管民法上对于混合共同担保内部追偿权的研究较多，但是该问题的诉讼视角的研究较为缺乏，且否定追偿权的诉讼不经济理由之论述，多是从实体法的角度进行应然思考，缺乏民事诉讼上的实际回应以及验证。欲解决上述问题，就必须来到民事诉讼法领域进行研究，因而采用诉讼法视野来探寻不同担保类型的担保人之间的追偿权问题，具有学术价值和现实意义。起先，本篇就混合共同担保内部追偿权进行立法溯源与权利内涵的厘清，明确肯定说与否定说争论的来由，以及追偿诉讼的诉讼不经济的具体情形以及理由。在此基础上，对混合共同担保内部追偿权的权利基础以及诉讼标的，根据约定情形与法定情形进行区分讨论。对于约定情形下的混合共同担保内部追偿权，主要是以《担保制度解释》第13条为依据，展开其权利基础以及诉讼标的的讨论；而对于法定情形下的混合共同担保内部追偿权，则通过《民法典》第519条和第700条两种权利基础解释路径的选择，展开请求权基础以及诉讼标的讨论。次之，本文根据一般追偿权的权利要件，结合《担保制度解释》第13条，对混合共同担保的内部追偿权的权利要件进行分析。在对《担保制度解释》第13条进行法条分析时，发现该条文中不仅包含混合共同担保的内部追偿权的权利发生要件，而且还存在追偿权的权利妨碍要件，即 “不能追偿部分”的要件。同时，由于其与一般保证人的先诉抗辩权具有解决问题、规制目的等方面相似之处，所以本文拟类推适用先诉抗辩权的相关规定，由提出该抗辩的其他担保人承担该要件的相应证明责任，以发挥其在诉讼中阻止追偿请求权达成的效用。再者，结合上文中对追偿权的诉讼标的以及法律关系性质的分析，讨论不同担保性质的担保人之间的追偿诉讼的诉讼样态。根据我国《民诉法》第55条以及混合共同担保内部的法律关系，无论约定情境的追偿权还是法定境况的追偿权，均采取普通共同诉讼形态更佳。进而，在存有向债务人不能追偿部分的抗辩下，相较先行诉讼债务人后获得执行终结裁定的时间金钱成本的浪费，追偿权人选择同时起诉债务人与其他担保人的普通共同诉讼，既能够满足被告行使该抗辩想要的效果，仅就向债务人不能追偿的部分进行份额分担，又能够使追偿权人获得最佳的追偿效果，避免出现由追偿权人承担全部责任的不公平现象。

In recent years, aiming at the problem of whether there is internal recovery right between guarantors with different guaranteed types of mixed joint guarantee, and there has been a great debate in civil law on whether the internal recovery right of mixed joint guarantee should be recognized, and a situation has emerged in which positive and passive theories are juxtaposed. Although there are many research findings in civil law, the research on the litigation perspective of this issue is relatively lacking, and the discussion of litigation costs is mostly considered from the perspective of substantive law and lacks practical response and verification in civil procedure law. To solve the above problems, it is necessary to go to the field of civil procedure law to conduct research, so the procedural law perspective is essential to study the internal recovery right. Therefore, in the field of civil procedure law, this paper intends to study the litigation realization of the internal recourse right of mixed joint guarantee, including but not limited to the subject of litigation, the basis of the claim right and the form of litigation, to provide a beneficial exploration of procedural law for the procedural debate of the internal recourse right.First, this paper clarifies the concept and legislative origin of the internal recovery right of mixed joint guarantee and clarifies the origin of the debate between the positive and passive theory, as well as the specific reasons and causes for the uneconomical litigation of the recovery action. On this basis, the basis of rights and the subject matter of the litigation of the internal recovery right are discussed separately according to the agreed circumstances and the statutory circumstances. For the internal recovery rights of mixed co-guarantee under the agreed circumstances, the discussion mainly focuses on Article 13 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Guarantee System(Article 13 for short) , the basis of its rights and the subject matter of action; As for the internal recovery right under statutory circumstances, the discussion of the basis of claim and the subject matter of action is carried out through the choice of the two rights basis interpretation paths of articles 519 and 700 of the Civil Code. Moreover, combined with the right base of legal recourse, the internal recourse relationship of mixed joint guarantee under legal circumstances also constitutes the joint relation. Therefore, for the right of recovery that is not provided for by law, this article will jointly discuss the legal relationship and litigation form with the help of the relevant provisions on joint and several guarantees under Article 13.Secondly, this paper analyzes the rights elements of the internal recovery right in combination with the constituent elements of general recourse rights. When analyzing the elements of rights, according to Article 13, it was found that there were also impediment elements of rights in the internal recovery of different types of guarantors, that is, the element of " non-recoverable part ". At the same time, due to its similarities with the right of plea preference claims in terms of solving problems and regulatory purposes, this article intends to apply the relevant provisions of the right of plea preference claims by analogy, and the other guarantors who raise the defense bear the corresponding burden of proof of this element, so as to play their role in preventing the recovery right holder from realizing the recovery claim of other guarantors in litigation.Thirdly, combined with the above analysis of the subject matter of the litigation and the legal relationship of the recovery rights, the litigation form of the recovery lawsuit between the mixed co-guarantors is analyzed. According to Article 55 of China‘s Civil Procedure Law and its internal legal relationships, whether it is an agreement on mixed joint guarantee or a statutory right of recovery, it adopts the litigation form of ordinary joint litigation. Further, in the form of litigation where there is a defense that cannot be recovered from the debtor, compared with the waste of time and money cost of obtaining the enforcement final award after suing the debtor first, the recovery party chooses to sue the debtor and other guarantors in ordinary joint litigation at the same time, and clarify the order of enforcement in the main text of the judgment to carry out the re-defense, which can not only enable the defendant to exercise the desired effect of the defense, share the share to the debtor that cannot be recovered, but also enable the recovery holder to obtain the best recovery result. Cover lost profits.Finally, regarding the exercise of the right to recover within the mixed joint guarantee and the form of litigation, the defense of "non-recoverable part" is reasonably used, which in turn prompts the guarantor with the guaranteed liability to sue the debtor and other guarantors at the same time, and the litigation adopts ordinary class action in the litigation form. The court should specify the order of enforcement in the main text of the judgment to achieve prior enforcement of the debtor‘s property, to avoid the situation where other guarantors subsequently file a recovery action against the debtor, and thus reject the view that recovery litigation will cause litigation to be uneconomical and provide a positive basis for litigation for the internal recovery right between different types of guarantors.