摘要： 我国现行企业破产法并未规定破产劣后债权,司法实践中主要由司法政策文件提供原则性指引,导致对某些特殊债权的清偿顺位认定标准不一。《企业破产法(修订草案)》第162条对劣后债权种类采取了列举式规定,但其内在法理逻辑有待厘清。“法定”劣后债权体现对非破产法规范的尊重,利息债权的劣后处理是破产止息规则的合理延伸,次级债券持有人的债权依其法定含义劣后清偿;关联关系债权的劣后以衡平居次原则为法理基础,其适用范围应延伸至家庭成员债权,且应在“衡平居次”基础上通过个案审查确保实质公平;基于破产法的社会本位属性,惩罚性债权亦应纳于劣后债权范畴,并明确私法与公法惩罚性债权的受偿顺位,对兼具补偿与惩罚性质的债权区分处理。

关键词: 劣后债权, 关联关系, 惩罚性债权, 衡平居次

Abstract: China's current Enterprise Bankruptcy Law does not establish a systematic regime for subordinated claims.In practice, the determination of repayment priority has relied predominantly on judicial policy documents, resulting in inconsistent treatment of certain special categories of claims.Article 162 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (Draft Amendment) adopts an enumerative approach to defining subordinated claims, yet its underlying doctrinal logic requires further clarification. “Statutory” subordinated claims reflect bankruptcy law's respect for non-bankruptcy legal norms, and the subordinated treatment of interest claims constitutes a logical extension of the rule that interest ceases to accrue upon the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings.Likewise, claims arising from the debtor's issuance of subordinated bonds should be subordinated according to their statutory meaning.Claims based on connected relationships rest on the doctrine of equitable subordination.The scope of this doctrine should extend to claims among family members, and its operation should be refined through case-specific review to ensure substantive fairness.Finally, given bankruptcy law's socially oriented character, punitive claims should also fall within the category of subordinated claims.A further distinction is required between private-law and public-law punitive claims, and hybrid claims that serve both compensatory and punitive functions should be treated differentially.

Key words: Subordinated Claim, Connected Relationship, Punitive Claim, Equitable Subordination