在缺乏统一法律规定和理论指导的背景下，我国法院适用衡平居次规则的司法实践在探索中发展。面对暂时超前于立法的司法实践，本文主要研究如何通过有针对性的比较法研究和借鉴，将我国司法实践中已自觉形成的部分规则进行整合和与细化，进而为规则本土化奠定理论基础。本文第一章引言部分主要介绍了国内外对衡平居次规则的研究现状以及本文的创新点。第二章主要对我国法院自发形成的居次实践进行分类梳理，并归纳出我国目前司法实践中适用衡平居次规则的主要问题。一方面，我国居次规则的规制对象与制度功能不清，与非破产法上制度的关系不明；另一方面，我国居次事由的判断标准存在模糊或武断。在明确我国规则适用中存在的问题后，本文第三章主要通过回顾衡平居次规则在美国的起源，展现其与相关规则的区别，进而明确衡平居次规则的独特规制对象和制度功能。与关注公司实体概念是否存在的法人格否认制度相比，衡平居次规则着眼于控制人的“不公平行为”；与以处理“单一”纠纷为构想的交易法上的欺诈性转让规则和公司法上的禁止滥用股东权利规则相比，破产法上的衡平居次规则在设立之初即意在处理大量集中的复杂纠纷，以效率为导向。在此基础上，本文第四章着眼于制度的具体构建，主要研究衡平居次规则在美国司法实践中的审查架构以及各居次事由的技术性判断标准。进行了上述有针对性的比较法研究后，本文第五章对我国规则适用中的问题进行回应，试图在我国本土适用经验的基础上，结合域外法的理论和实践经验，进一步完善我国的规则适用的整体逻辑和具体标准。具体而言，一方面，我国应围绕“不公平行为”构建居次事由，并明确衡平居次规则以效率为导向的制度功能。另一方面，我国应构建以“不公平行为”和“债权人损害”为核心的规则适用框架，借鉴比较法上“资本不足”的技术性判断标准，并参考我国公司法实践经验，借助程序审查和举证责任的分配界定“不公平交易”和“不当管理”。第六章对文章各部分内容进行总结，点明本文创新点及对我国规则适用的建议。
In the context of the absence of unified legal regulations and theoretical guidance, the judicial practice of applying the equitable subordination rule in China is developing through exploration. In response to judicial practices that are temporarily ahead of legislation, this article primarily aims to study how to integrate and refine rules in China‘s judicial practice through targeted comparative research. This will lay a theoretical foundation for the localization of rules.Chapter 1 mainly provides an overview of the research status of equitable subordination rule in China and abroad, as well as the innovative points of this article. Chapter 2 classifies and summarizes the judicial practice of Chinese courts in the absence of unified legal regulations and theoretical guidance. It also highlights the problems in the application of equitable subordination rule in China. On one hand, the objects and functions of equitable subordination rule in China are unclear, and the relationship between equitable subordination rule and non-bankruptcy rules is ambiguous. On the other hand, the judgment criteria for the subordination rule of balancing in China are ambiguous or arbitrary.After clarifying the problems in the application of China‘s rules, Chapter 3 reviews the origin of equitable subordination rule in the United States, shows its differences from related rules, and clarifies the unique objects and functions of equitable subordination rule. Compared with the corporation personality denial that focuses on the concept of company entity, the equitable subordination rule in bankruptcy law focuses on "inequitable conduct" of the controllers. Furthermore, compared with the fraudulent transfer rules in transaction law and the breach of fiduciary duty rules in company law, the equitable subordination rule in bankruptcy law aims to deal with a large number of centralized and complex disputes efficiently. Based on this, Chapter 4 focuses on the specific construction of the rule, mainly studying the "three-step" application framework of equitable subordination rule in the judicial practice of the United States and the technical judgment criteria of each subordination reason. After conducting targeted comparative law research, Chapter 5 responds to the problems summarized in Chapter 2. This chapter tries to improve the overall logic and specific standards of rule application in China based on domestic application experience as well as the experience from abroad. Specifically, on one hand, China should rebuild subordination reasons around "inequitable conduct" and clarify the efficiency-oriented function of equitable subordination rule. On the other hand, China should establish a rule application framework based on "inequitable conduct" and "creditor damage", learn "capital deficiency" technical judgment criteria in comparative law, and reference domestic practical experience in company law. The allocation of burden and procedural review can also be used to clarify situations of "unfair transactions" and "improper management". Chapter 6 provides a summary of the content covered in the article, highlighting the innovative points and recommendations for the application of equitable subordination rule in China.
