A co-guarantor pays, time runs for the rest
A creditor who sees someone still paying assumes the whole debt is safe from limitation; a guarantor who has paid nothing assumes the opposite about themselves. Both can be wrong: an interruption does not bind everyone standing behind the same debt.
Phenhnung Thabthimthong
Partner · YACT Association
Published 7 August 2026 · Updated 14 August 2026
Each person is counted separately, with one exception
Section 295 of the Civil and Commercial Code provides that facts other than those in sections 292 to 294, where they concern one joint debtor, operate for and against that debtor alone, and its second paragraph lists limitation and its interruption among them. Section 692 then says, in one line, that an interruption operating against the debtor operates against the guarantor as well. That wording names one direction only — from debtor to guarantor. It says nothing about the reverse, and nothing about sideways.
From principal debtor to guarantor, it carries
Judgment 3104/2558 shows the direction that works. The creditor sued the principal debtor for principal and arrears of interest, which interrupted time under section 193/14(2), and the period already elapsed was left out of account under the second paragraph of section 193/15. That interruption operated against the guarantor too, under section 692. The case became final on 22 September 2547, so time ran again for the guarantor from that date, and the proof of debt lodged on 21 June 2550 was still inside the five years for arrears of interest.
From guarantor back to the debtor, it does not
Judgment 3021/2536 holds that where a guarantor pays and so interrupts time against themselves, no provision makes that reach the debtor: even though the debtor is liable jointly with the guarantor, each debtor's period operates for and against that debtor alone under section 295. Judgment 1438/2540 follows it through to the consequence: arrears of interest older than five years having become time-barred against the debtors, the creditor could not apply the guarantor's money to that interest.
Between co-guarantors it does not carry, and a case turned on it
Judgment 6403/2561 contains both directions at once. The principal debtor was in bankruptcy and the creditor proved its debt, which interrupted time under section 193/14(3) and, under section 692, operated against the guarantor too. Time restarted on 16 January 2543, and the action brought on 30 May 2555 came more than ten years later, so it was out of time. The creditor pointed to a part payment by another co-guarantor on 30 July 2545, but the Court held that section 692 does not provide that an interruption against one co-guarantor operates against the others: it governs the relation between guarantor and debtor, and as between co-guarantors the law of suretyship fixes nothing, so section 295 applies.
What matters is who acted, and in what capacity
Limitation on a debt with several guarantors is therefore not one line but a separate reckoning for each person. A creditor whose file records only when money came in, and not who paid it or in what capacity, cannot say how much time is left against whom. A guarantor who is sued should check first whether the event said to interrupt time was an act of the principal debtor or of a co-guarantor, because the two answer differently.
AUTHORITY
The judgments this rests on
Supreme Court judgment 6403/2561
Proving the debt in the principal debtor's bankruptcy interrupted time and, under section 692, operated against the guarantor; but section 692 does not provide that an interruption against one co-guarantor operates against another, so as between co-guarantors section 295 applies.
Supreme Court judgment 3104/2558
The creditor's action against the principal debtor interrupted time under section 193/14(2) and operated against the guarantor under section 692; when that case became final, time began to run again for the guarantor from that date under the second paragraph of section 193/15.
Supreme Court judgment 3021/2536
A guarantor's payment interrupts time against the guarantor, and no provision makes that reach the debtor, even where the debtor is liable jointly with the guarantor.
Supreme Court judgment 1438/2540
Arrears of interest older than five years being time-barred as against the debtors, the creditor could not apply money paid by the guarantor to that time-barred interest.
QUESTIONS
Questions this raises
I guaranteed jointly with someone who is still paying. How does time run for me?
Under judgment 6403/2561 a co-guarantor's payment binds that person alone and does not reach the others, by section 295, so each person's reckoning runs from the events that bound them. That cuts both ways, because a binding event may have been an act of the principal debtor, which under section 692 does reach every guarantor. What has to be assembled is the full list of events, not only the visible payments.
The debtor was sued years ago. Can the guarantor still be sued now?
Judgment 3104/2558 indicates that suing the principal debtor interrupts time and, under section 692, does so against the guarantor as well. The period already elapsed is left out of account and time runs again from the date that case became final, under the second paragraph of section 193/15. Counting from the debtor's first default therefore starts at the wrong point; the date to establish is when the debtor's case became final.
LAW
The legislation
- Civil and Commercial Code, section 295
- Civil and Commercial Code, section 692
- Civil and Commercial Code, sections 193/14 and 193/15
ENQUIRIES
