参与分配制度在司法实践中面临着启动条件、适用范围、清偿顺位、救济机制等适用问题，与巨大的制度适用需求形成了突出的矛盾，其分配原则、理论与价值基础、与破产主义功能定位的廓清等理论问题的缺失，导致立法规则多变，缺乏核心的指导思想。在我国企业破产制度日益完善的背景下，参与分配的制度逻辑一定程度上产生了茫然之惑，参与分配出现了制度失灵的危机，亟需系统梳理参与分配的理论基础、功能定位与制度逻辑，科学设计参与分配规则，为实践提供有效的执行制度供给，缓解“执行难”的问题。

参与分配是强制执行法中的一项重要制度，执行法的理论逻辑与价值取向决定了参与分配制度的核心内容。执行法领域中，存在着多项执行竞合的类型，参与分配是处理执行竞合问题的一种方法，执行竞合理论作为参与分配的理论基础，一定程度上规制了参与分配制度的范畴。

参与分配制度的立法规范存在适用标准的混乱现象，其根源在于参与分配平等主义与优先主义的立法政策的争议，统一参与分配的立法政策，实定法规范的乱象才能得以解决。然而，立法政策本身并不能完成自我选择的任务，需要结合参与分配制度的价值考量因素，基于参与分配的执行法定位，参与分配应适用执行的基本价值原则，即在不影响实质公平的情况下，以效率价值为主导，坚持平等主义，并为先采取执行措施的债权人予以一定的优惠。同时，为明确参与分配的执行法属性，需要将其与破产主义进行细致的比较，全面梳理二者功能定位的区别，彰显参与分配制度的独立性价值。

在从立法政策与价值衡量角度明确了参与分配的执行法取向，并在功能定位上与破产程序进行明确区分后，笔者认为参与分配中的债权适宜按下列顺位清偿：共益费用、法定抵销权、民生债权、退赔被害人的损失、特别优先债权、担保债权、税收债权、查封优先权、一般民事债权。笔者并针对参与分配程序规则进行了完善构想。

文章由六个章节和结语、参考文献三大部分组成。

第一章，导言部分首先阐述了论文写作的背景，在民事强制执行领域中，普遍存在着民事执行竞合的现象，而参与分配制度即按照一定的规则将执行财产所得在各债权人之间进行分配，试图解决执行竞合的问题。笔者采用案例分析方法，得出社会对于参与分配制度的巨大需求的结论，并结合我国现有法律制度规范，明确提出我国目前参与分配法律制度规则供给不足的观点。同时，导言对立法与研究现状、选题的理论意义与实践价值、本文研究方法与不足等进行了总括。

第二章，通过比较参与分配与破产程序的功能定位，以从根本上划清二者的界限，避免参与分配滑入破产程序之中，从而失去独立的制度价值，并进一步彰显参与分配的执行法价值。参与分配制度与破产主义存在着深厚的历史渊源，一国破产制度与参与分配的分工配合形成的立法构造是理论与实际、历史与现实的选择。关于参与分配功能定位的不同学说争论的根源在于破产与参与分配分工与协作的关系。

第三章，提出了参与分配制度应建立执行制度范畴内的观点，参与分配表明形成了执行竞合，参与分配又是处理执行竞合问题的一种方法，解决执行竞合的办法潜隐在参与分配的各项制度细节之中。现实中立法例的不同表明存在着立法政策的区别，参与分配的立法政策需要权衡选择。

第四章，面对参与分配中出现的不同利益冲突，需要把握正确的价值衡量原则，这也是解决立法政策选择难题的必由之路。面对公正与效率的价值，参与分配制度作为强制执行制度的组成部分，其目的是为解决多数人债权实现的问题，同样要体现效率优先的客观要求。参与分配的债权应坚持平等主义原则，并对先采取执行措施的债权予以一定的优惠。

第五章，参与分配制度的完善应在执行制度的框架内进行，由此决定，参与分配制度可以适用于企业法人，但须满足执行机关所掌握的被执行人的财产不足以清偿各申请执行人的债权的前提条件。同时，以下三类债权人可以参与分配：1、取得执行依据的债权人；2、已诉并有效查封被执行财产的债权人；3、优先债权人，无论是否起诉。在此基础上，明确参与分配中的债权清偿顺位。

第六章，对参与分配的程序规则予以体系化完善，并将执行法理念与原则全面贯彻到程序规则中，实现司法实践中参与分配适用的统一性。具体而言，参与分配需要对参与分配的时点与主持分配的法院管辖权予以明确，由首封的的法院主持分配工作更为妥当。关于参与分配救济问题，笔者提出了由普通债权人对优先权人提起异议之诉、将分配异议之诉融入分配表异议之诉、提前分配与提存问题处理原则等主张。

结语部分对全文的写作结构与主要观点进行了梳理与总结，笔者从执行竞合入手建立了参与分配制度的理论基础，并先后通过参与分配制度的立法政策、利益冲突、价值衡量、功能定位等层面，深化了参与分配的执行法属性，优化了参与分配中债权顺位与程序规则的设置，以期对参与分配理论研究与司法实践有所裨益。参与分配作为执行法体系的组成部分，是处理执行竞合问题的一种方法，需要采纳执行法律的理论逻辑与价值取向，不能在破产主义勃兴的大潮中迷失方向。参与分配应适用执行的基本价值原则，坚持优先主义，尽量在同顺位债权中纳入平等主义，并明晰与破产主义功能间的关系，以此统一立法政策，终结立法标准混乱的局面。在此基础上，参与分配的债权清偿顺位与程序规则等核心规范得以科学设置。

In the judicial practice, the participation allotment system is faced with applicable issues such as starting conditions, scope of application, claims payment order, remedy mechanism, and so on. It has formed a prominent contradiction with the huge application requirements of the system. The lack of theoretical issues such as its distribution principle, theory and value basis, the clearing of its position with the function of bankruptcy has led to a variety of legislative rules and lack of a core guiding ideology. Under the background of the increasingly perfect corporate bankruptcy system in China, the logic of participation allotment system has created a certain degree of confusion. Participation allotment system has led to the crisis of institutional failure. It is imperative to systematically sort out the theoretical basis, functional positioning, and institutional logic of participation allotment, and scientifically design the rules of participation allotment to provide an effective implementation system for practice and to ease the "difficulties in enforcement."

Participation allocation is an important system in compulsory enforcement law. The theoretical logic and value orientation of the enforcement law determine the core content of participating allocation system. In the field of enforcement law, there are several types of enforcement concurrence. Participation allocation is a way to deal with the problem of enforcement concurrence. As the theoretical basis of participation, the enforcement concurrence theory to some extent regulates the scope of participation allocation system.

There is a confusion of applicable standards in the legislative norms of the participation allocation system, which is rooted in the disputes of the legislation policies between the egalitarianism and the priority doctrine. The chaos of legal norms can only be resolved unless there is a unified legislative policy of participation allocation. However, the legislative policy itself cannot accomplish the task of self-selection, and it needs to combine the value considerations of participation allocation system. Based on the enforcement orientation, the basic value principle of enforcement law should be applied, in the case that it does not affect the substantive fairness, participation allocation should be dominated by efficiency values and adhere to the principle of the priority doctrine, try to include egalitarianism in the same sequence of the creditors’ rights. At the same time , in order to define the enforcement law’s attribute of participation allocation, it is necessary to make a comparison with bankruptcy law, make a comprehensive analysis of the differences between the two functions, and show the independence value of participation allocation system.

After the enforcement orientation of participation allocation is clarified from the perspectives of legislative policy and value consideration, and make a clear distinction with bankruptcy proceedings from the functional orientation, the author thinks that the creditor's right in participation allocation should be paid following the order: expense for common benefit, the right of legal set-off, creditor’s right about people’s livelihood, the loss of the infringed, special priority claims, secure claims, obligatory rights of taxation, the priority claims about attachment, and general civil claims. The author also makes a perfect conception on the rules of the participation allocation procedure.

The article consists of three parts: six chapters, conclusion, and reference.

In the first chapter, the introduction set forth firstly the background of the paper: in the field of civil enforcement law, there is a common phenomenon of enforcement concurrence. Participation allocation system allocates the property in the enforcement procedure to the creditors in accordance with certain rules, and try to solve the problem of enforcement concurrence. The author uses case analysis method to draw the conclusion that society has great demand for participation allocation system, and put forward the view that the current participation allocation system rules is insufficient, combining the existing legal norms system in China. At the same time, the current situation about the legislation and research, the theoretical significance and practical value of the topic, the research methods and shortcomings to this paper are discussed.

In the second chapter, By comparing the function orientation between participation and bankruptcy procedure, the fourth chapter makes a clear dividing line, to avoid participation allocation sliding into the scope of bankruptcy procedure, and losing independence. Furthermore, it shows the value of participation allocation. Participation allocation has a deep historical origin with bankruptcy system. The legislative structure which is formed by the cooperation between the bankruptcy system and participation allocation is the choice between theory and practice, history and reality. The root of the debate about the different doctrines of the participation allocation function is the relationship of cooperation between bankruptcy and participation allocation.

In the third chapter, the author puts forward the idea that the participation allocation system should be established in the scope of the enforcement law. The participation allocation indicates that the enforcement concurrence is formed, and the participation allocation is also a way to deal with the problem of enforcement concurrence. The solution to the enforcement concurrence is implicit in the institutional details of participation allocation. Different legislation in reality shows the difference of legislative policy. The legislative policy that participation allocation need to be chose by value consideration.

In the fourth chapter, it is necessary to grasp the correct value measurement principle in the face of different conflicts of interest in participation allocation, which is the only way to solve the problem of legislative policy choice. In the face of the value of justice and efficiency, as an integral part of the enforcement system, the purpose of participation allocation is to solve the problem of the realization of the creditor’s rights, and it is necessary to reflect the objective requirements of giving priority to efficiency. The creditor's rights involved in the distribution shall adhere to the principle of egalitarianism and give certain preferential treatment to the creditor's rights that first take enforcement measures.

About the fifth chapter, the improvement of the participation allocation system should be carried out within the framework of the enforcement system, therefore, the participation allocation system can be applied to the corporate legal person. At the same time, the following three types of creditors can participate in the distribution: The creditor who has obtained the implementation basis, the creditor who has been charged and effectively sealed the property, and senior creditors, whether or not charged. On the basis of this, the article clearly points out that the realization order of the creditor's right in participation allocation.

The sixth chapter systematizes the procedure rules of participation allocation, and fully implement the idea and principle of enforcement law in the participation allocation procedure rules. To be specific, it is necessary to clarify the time in the participation allocation and jurisdiction of the courts that presiding over the distribution. It is more appropriate that the court which firstly accept the enforcement cases take charge of the assignment. About the relief problem of participation allocation, the author put forward the proposition that the ordinary creditor raises an objection to the priority, it is necessary to integrate the dissent lawsuit of distribution into the dissent lawsuit of the assignment table, and about pre-allocation and principles of dealing with escrow.

The conclusion part summarizes the writing structure and main points of the thesis. The author establishes the theoretical basis of participation allocation system from enforcement concurrence. And successively through the legislative policy, conflict of interest, value consideration, and function orientation in participation allocation system, the part deepen the attribute of enforcement law in participation allocation system, and optimizes the allocation of creditor's rights and procedural rules, in order to be helpful to the research and judicial practice of participation allocation. Participation allotment as an integral part of the implementation law system is a method to deal with the enforcement concurrence issue. It needs to return to the theoretical logic and value orientation of the enforcement law, and it cannot be lost in the tide of bankruptcy. Participation allotment should apply the basic values of implementation law, uphold the principle of priority, try to include egalitarianism in the covenant debt, and clarify the relationship with the bankruptcy function, so as to unify the legislative policy and end the chaotic situation of legislative standards. On this basis, the core specifications such as the allocation of creditor's rights and the rules of procedure can be set scientifically.