债权平等一直以来被民法学者奉为圭臬。对于大多数学者来说债权平等似乎是一个先验的概念,少数学者则从民事主体地位平等、债权的隐秘性以及相对性角度为债权平等提供了理论支撑。我国实证法为了回应债权平等在破产法以及诉讼法执行程序中分别确立公平清偿原则和参与分配制度。然而我国实证法却在多个领域又突破了债权平等原则。就其理论基础而言,民事主体地位平等只能够说明债权人的主体地位的平等却并不能够直接推导出债权本身的平等,而债权的隐秘性和相对性理论也不能够得出债权平等的结论。实证法的突破和理论基础的虚假性使得债权平等的真实性受到质疑。 The equality of creditor’s rights has been regarded by civil law scholars as a standard. For most scholars, it seems that creditor’s rights equality is a transcendental concept. A few scholars provide theoretical support for the equality of creditor’s rights from the perspectives of equality of civil subjects, obscurity of claims and relativity. In order to respond to the equality of creditor’s rights, the Empirical Law of our country establishes the principle of fair repayment and the system of participation in the bankruptcy law and procedural law enforcement respectively. However, the positive law of our country has broken through the principle of equality of creditor’s rights in many fields. As far as its theoretical basis is concerned, the equality of civil subjects can only explain the equality of the subjective status of creditors, but it can not derive the equality of claims directly, and the theory of obscurity and relativity of claims can not draw the conclusion of the equality of claims . The breakthrough of the positive law and the falsity of the theoretical basis make the authenticity of the equality of creditor’s rights questioned.