随着我国担保领域的理论和实践不断发展，原先我国《担保法》对保证人利益保护不足的问题日益凸显，《民法典》第702条开创性地赋予保证人因债务人对债权人享有抵销权或撤销权而拒绝承担保证责任的权利，在路径上选择了近年来德国、日本等国的抗辩权模式，但法条的表述较为简单，已有的研究主要是从立法论的角度讲述回顾立法思路，而忽视了该规则适用方面的诸多细节问题。研究如何保障第702条抗辩权规则的顺利运转，以及在特殊情形下应当如何认定权利状态，对于未来的立法完善、理论拓展和实践应用都有着重要意义。本文参考比较法上的规则、理论以及案例，围绕第702条抗辩权的规则适用这一主题，从五个方面展开讨论，分别是：权利基础和权利性质、构成要件和特殊情形、权利扩展的理论探究、权利行使的制度保障、权利行使的法律效果。首先，本文分析了第702条抗辩权的立法目的，回应了形成权说的理由，并肯定了抗辩权说的合理性，指出第702条抗辩权兼具衍生性与从属性，不属于传统的抗辩权类型。其次，本文认为第702条作为新增制度，要特别注意其与抵销权、撤销权制度衔接时可能出现的特殊情形，对于债务人享有抵销权的情形而言，应当允许被动债权不具有唯一确定性，债务人放弃抵销权时抗辩权消灭，当事人有权通过格式条款对保证人的抗辩权进行排除，反担保人在债务人对追偿权人享有抵销权时也可以拒绝承担保证责任；对于债务人享有撤销权的情形而言，应考虑将撤销权具体类型的表述更加细化，在判断撤销权是否被放弃时应注意诉讼中的禁反言规则，除斥期间届满时抗辩权随撤销权一同消灭。随后，本文探讨了在债权人享有抵销权、债务人享有其他形成权时，第702条扩展适用到这些情形的可能性。最后，本文强调只有在制度上确保保证人对债务人抵销权、抗辩权是知情的，才能让第702条的制度具备更高的可行性。这一目标需要各方共同配合实现，保证人收到履行请求后负有询问的不真正义务，债务人则负有通知义务，本文还具体讨论了各方未履行义务的法律后果。如第702条抗辩权顺利行使，不会影响诉讼时效，只产生暂时拒绝履行保证债务的法律效果。

With the continuous development of the theory and practice in the field of guarantee in China, the problem of insufficient protection of the surety‘s interests in the Guarantee Law is becoming more and more prominent. To solve the problem, Article 702 of the Civil Code innovatively endowed the surety with a new right to refuse to fulfil the suretyship obligations. In this regard, China chose the defense right model following Germany and Japan. However, the expression of the legal provision is relatively simple, and existing studies mainly discuss legislative ideas from the perspective of legislation, ignoring many detailed issues regarding the application of this rule. Studying how to ensure the smooth operation of the defense right rule in Article 702 and how to determine the status of rights in special circumstances is of great significance for future legislative improvements, theoretical expansions, and practical applications. This paper refers to rules, theories, and cases in comparative law, focusing on the application of Article 702. There are five key topics worth discussing around this topic: the foundation and nature of the right, the elements and special situations, theoretical exploration of the expansion of the right, institutional safeguards for exercising the right, and the legal effects of exercising the right. Firstly, the surety‘s right established by Article 702 is a type of defense right that is statutory, temporary, and derivative in nature. The right can be divided into set-off defense right and revocation defense right. Secondly, as a newly introduced system, special attention must be paid to the special situations that may arise when connecting this right with set-off and revocation rights. In cases where the debtor has the right of set-off, the passive creditor does not need to have absolute certainty. When the debtor waives the right of set-off, the defense right is extinguished. Parties have the right to exclude the surety‘s right of defense through standard clauses. Similarly, a counter-guarantor may also refuse to fulfil the suretyship obligations in instances outlined in Article 702. In cases where the debtor has the right of revocation, the surety‘s knowledge of the existence of the revocation right or any fault in this regard does not affect the surety‘s right of defense. The right of revocation enjoyed by the homeowner concerning external actions of the homeowner association and the homeowners committee is also within the scope of this article. In determining whether the right of revocation has been waived, attention should be paid to the estoppel rule. When the extinction period expires, the defense right is extinguished together with the right of revocation. Thirdly, the scope of Article 702 is too narrow, leading to legal loopholes. It can be conditionally expanded to include situations where the creditor has the right of set-off or the debtor has other formative rights such as the right of choice, the right to request changes in circumstances, the right to request price reduction, and the right to adjust liquidated damages. Additionally, the Ask-and-Notification obligation should be established as the supporting system. After receiving a performance request, the surety has the obligation to inquire, while the debtor has a notification obligation. If parties fail to fulfill their obligations, they should bear specific legal consequences. Finally, the right of defense under Article 702 allows the surety to temporarily refuse to perform the guarantee obligation, delaying the commencement of the statute of limitations of the surety debt.