Perspective | Can the Bankruptcy Creditor Confirmation Ruling Based on "Res Judicata" Be Overturned?

Res judicata refers to the binding force that a judgment or ruling with final legal effect has on subsequent lawsuits.

For specific provisions, refer to Article 93 of the "Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" (second amendment dated March 22, 2022), which states: "The following facts do not require parties to provide evidence for proof: … (v) Facts already confirmed by a legally effective judgment rendered by a people's court; (vi) Facts already confirmed by a final arbitration award issued by an arbitration institution; (vii) Facts already verified by a valid notarized document. … However, if a party presents contrary evidence sufficient to rebut the facts stipulated in items (v) through (vii), such rebuttal shall be permitted."

1. Classification of Res Judicata

Divided into: positive effect and negative effect.

1. The principle of "preclusive effect of prior cases" ensures that people's courts may not issue new judgments or rulings in subsequent litigation that contradict the content of previous judgments or rulings, reflecting the "stability of the law" (which means rendering identical decisions under the same legal standards; naturally, when the law is updated, new rulings will follow, giving rise to the so-called "principle of applying the older law" in legal practice).

2. The principle of negative res judicata, also known as "res judicata" or "prohibition of retrial," prohibits re-litigation of the same matter after a final judgment or ruling has been issued by a people's court.

Res judicata refers to the recognition of the rights and obligations of the parties involved, particularly their substantive rights and duties. However, if new facts emerge, res judicata no longer applies to the case as of the relevant benchmark time. Specifically, the circumstances under which res judicata is excluded are outlined in Article 248 of the "Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," which states: "After a judgment takes legal effect, if new facts arise and the parties subsequently file another lawsuit, the people's court shall accept the case in accordance with the law."

Does the civil ruling confirming the list of undisputed claims in bankruptcy cases have res judicata effect? Based on the legal provisions and descriptions outlined above, such a ruling should indeed qualify as an effective judicial document. The following discussion will explore this issue further from multiple perspectives.

According to page 134 of the book "Interpretation and Application of Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People's Republic of China," compiled by the Second Civil Adjudication Division of the Supreme People's Court, from the perspective of China's bankruptcy trial practice, the res judicata effect of civil rulings and creditor lists that have been verified by the creditors' meeting and approved by the court cannot yet be considered fully equivalent to that of a judgment under the current legal framework of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law.

Article 178, Paragraph 3 of the German Insolvency Act stipulates that the registration of claims in the creditors' schedule, specifying both the amount and priority of each claim, shall have the same legal effect as a judgment that has already become final and binding—applicable to the insolvency administrator and all bankruptcy creditors alike.

Article 124, Paragraph (3) of the Japanese Bankruptcy Law stipulates that the confirmed contents of claims listed on the bankruptcy creditors' register shall have the same legal effect as a judgment in a claim confirmation lawsuit for all bankruptcy creditors.

Professor Wang Xinxin, a member of the drafting and revision teams for China’s National People’s Congress Financial and Economic Committee’s draft and amendments to the "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People’s Republic of China," as well as an advisor to the Supreme People’s Court’s drafting group for the judicial interpretation of the same law, clearly argued in his article titled "Interpretation of Article 8 of the Third Judicial Interpretation of the Bankruptcy Law," published on August 15, 2019, in the People’s Court Daily, that "the legislative provision requiring courts to rule on and confirm the creditors’ list prepared by the administrator and verified by the creditors’ meeting marks the establishment of the right to file a lawsuit challenging creditor claims. This court ruling is procedural in nature rather than constituting a substantive judgment; hence, it does not confer definitive legal validity confirming the authenticity or legality of individual claims. Consequently, parties are still entitled to initiate lawsuits seeking confirmation—or even provisional non-confirmation—of the claims listed on the creditors’ table."

One view holds that the people's court's ruling on unchallenged claims has already taken legal effect, dismissing the lawsuit. Another view argues that the court's ruling on unchallenged claims is a procedural decision and thus remains subject to appeal.

With the growing awareness of the rule of law and the continuous improvement of judicial standards, judicial rulings have shifted from their previous status as res judicata in bankruptcy cases to becoming subject to litigation. It’s not accurate to say that judicial rulings have stepped down from their so-called "pedestal"—rather, due to the practical needs of bankruptcy proceedings, contemporary legal frameworks, judicial practices, and reasoning processes are constantly being refined and enhanced.

■ 1. Judicial rulings supporting the res judicata effect of uncontested creditor claims judgments

1. (2025) E12 Min Zhong 512, "Dispute over the Confirmation of Bankruptcy Claims between Tang Mouyou and Hubei Xianning [Name of Tourism Industry Co., Ltd.]," the second-instance court held: First, according to Article 210 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," The parties involved may apply to the next higher-level People's Court for a retrial if they believe there is an error in a judgment or ruling that has already taken legal effect. In this case, the court of first instance issued Civil Ruling No. (2021) E 1202 Po 6-4 on July 25, 2023, which has already become legally effective. If the appellant disagrees with this final ruling, they should file a request for retrial in accordance with the law, rather than initiating the present lawsuit seeking confirmation of bankruptcy claims. Secondly, after the creditors' meeting and the administrator distributed the "Notice on Verification of Claims" to creditors, no creditor raised any objections to the administrator or filed a lawsuit with the People's Court. Therefore, the appellant, Tang Mouyou, and his representative, as declarants of bankruptcy claims, should actively exercise their legitimate rights as stipulated by relevant laws. Any adverse consequences resulting from their personal failure to timely assert these rights shall be borne solely by themselves. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the original judgment.

2. (2020) Supreme People's Court Min Shen No. 284, "Reexamination Case of Dispute over Confirmation of Bankruptcy Claims between Cui Fuxing and Hainan Zhongdu Tourism Industry Development Co., Ltd.," ruled that on June 2, 2017, the Sanya Intermediate Court issued Civil Ruling No. (2016) Qiong 02 Po 1-2, confirming the claims against which no objections were raised; this ruling has already taken legal effect. Cui Fuxing subsequently filed the present lawsuit, seeking to amend the claims confirmed by the aforementioned ruling. However, the Hainan High Court held that Cui Fuxing’s suit challenged factual or legal relationships already established by a legally effective ruling of the people’s court. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 330 of the "Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," the court properly dismissed Cui Fuxing’s lawsuit.

3. (2023) Lu 10 Min Zhong No. 3073, Intermediate People's Court of Weihai City, Shandong Province: "Dispute over the Confirmation of Bankruptcy Claims between Huang Yuming and Weihai Huancui Construction Group Co., Ltd." — The second-instance court upheld the first-instance court's ruling, noting that the Bankruptcy Law provides clear procedural and substantive safeguards for creditors who raise objections to confirmed claims. Creditors who disagree with the creditor list approved by the administrator should actively exercise their rights in accordance with relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Law. Meanwhile, claims against which no objections have been raised by any creditor must be formally confirmed by the People's Court through a written ruling. Such a ruling carries both substantive certainty and mandatory procedural effect under the law. Additionally, this ruling serves as the court’s formal recognition of the parties’ undisputed substantive rights, granting it the same res judicata effect as a final judgment. In this case, Huang Yuming neither raised an objection nor filed a lawsuit prior to the People's Court issuing its confirmation ruling; therefore, he is deemed to have implicitly accepted the amount and nature of the confirmed claim. Consequently, Huang Yuming’s subsequent filing of this lawsuit to reassert the same claim constitutes a repeated litigation of facts already definitively resolved by the legally binding ruling, thereby violating the civil litigation principle of "res judicata"—the prohibition against relitigating matters that have already been decided.

■ 2. Judicial rulings supporting the litigability of uncontested debt claims

1. (2022) Henan Provincial High People's Court Case No. 330, "Liang Yaguo and Anyang Zhongguang Fahuicheng Real Estate Co., Ltd. Dispute over Confirmation of Bankruptcy Claims—Second Instance Civil Appeal," held that although the ruling has already taken legal effect and includes the claim filed by Liang Yaguo among the confirmed debts, this ruling was issued by the court during the bankruptcy proceedings as a procedural matter regarding claims listed on the creditors' schedule, to which neither the debtor nor the creditors raised objections. Therefore, the ruling is purely procedural in nature and does not carry substantive legal authority to validate the authenticity or legality of the individual claims. In cases where creditors dispute the claims—or even their nature—as listed on the creditors' schedule, they retain the right to seek judicial relief by filing a lawsuit for claim confirmation. The court of first instance erred in concluding that Civil Ruling No. (2021) Yu05 Po1-1 had already become legally binding, thereby dismissing Liang Yaguo's subsequent lawsuit as an attempt to challenge the factual and legal relationships established by that ruling. Such a dismissal was clearly improper and has been corrected by this court.

2. (2023) Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court, Case No. Jing 01 Min Zhong 4978, "Dispute over the Confirmation of Ordinary Bankruptcy Claims between Dalian Zhongke Gelaik Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Shien (Beijing) Technology Development Co., Ltd." held that, regarding disputes over whether substantive claims in bankruptcy-related litigation are valid, since the bankruptcy proceedings involve a dynamic liquidation process, creditor and debtor relationships may change based on factual evidence uncovered during the bankruptcy liquidation. The court's ruling confirming the creditors' list was issued to facilitate the further advancement of the bankruptcy procedure, not as a final, enforceable judgment rendered through litigation. Therefore, the People's Court did not make an actual determination on the validity of the claims themselves. Any adjustments to the number or amount of creditors listed—whether increasing or decreasing—may be made in light of newly discovered facts, rather than constituting a rejection or overturning of the original ruling.

3. (2023) Liaoning No. 01 Min Zhong No. 10917, Liaoning Provincial Shenyang Intermediate People's Court case "Liu Wei, Shenyang Firecracker and Fireworks Co., Ltd., et al. – Dispute over the Confirmation of Ordinary Bankruptcy Claims": The court determined whether this case falls within the scope of civil litigation. At its core, the dispute revolves around whether the confirmation ruling issued by the People's Court regarding unchallenged claims carries res judicata effect. Bankruptcy proceedings represent a dynamic liquidation process. When the court rules to confirm the claims listed in the creditors' schedule, it conducts only a procedural review—not an examination of the merits. Essentially, the authenticity and legality of the claims largely depend on the administrator's assessment. Moreover, both claims and debts may change as new factual evidence emerges during the bankruptcy liquidation process. The court's confirmation of the creditors' schedule is intended to facilitate the smooth progression of the bankruptcy procedure itself. It does not constitute a final, enforceable judgment rendered through litigation. In fact, the court has yet to make a substantive determination on whether the claims themselves are valid or legitimate. As such, any increases or decreases in the number of creditors or the amounts claimed can be adjusted based on newly discovered facts—this does not imply a reversal or invalidation of the original ruling. Therefore, the ruling confirming unchallenged claims is merely the court's procedural acknowledgment, within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings, of those claims that have been verified and agreed upon by both debtors and creditors. This type of ruling is procedural in nature and does not carry the substantive legal authority to definitively validate the true and lawful status of each party's claims. If creditors dispute the claims or their nature as listed in the schedule, they retain the right to seek legal remedies by filing a lawsuit for claim confirmation.

As Marx points out in his "Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right," "When the old regime was still the world power that had existed since time immemorial, and freedom was merely a sudden idea arising in individuals—if, in short, the old regime itself still believed, and indeed must have believed, in its own rationality—then its history was tragic. But when the old regime, as the established world order, clashed with the emerging new world, it committed a mistake of global historical significance, not a personal one. Consequently, the demise of the old regime was also a tragedy."

Based on the analysis above, while there are indeed varying judicial rulings in practice regarding court decisions confirming undisputed claims in bankruptcy proceedings, and different legal provisions across countries, from the perspective of China's judicial environment and mainstream viewpoints, the author believes that, before the bankruptcy process is concluded, claims confirmed by court rulings without objection still retain their litigability.

The court's ruling on undisputed claims does not carry "full" res judicata effect, as it did not conduct a substantive review of each individual claim. Instead, the responsibility for reviewing both the form and substance of each claim rests with the administrator. Although the claims are procedurally finalized after being examined by the administrator, verified by the creditors' meeting, and confirmed by the court's ruling, they remain subject to challenge: if other creditors present compelling counter-evidence, the correction procedure outlined in Article 386 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (as amended in 2022), combined with Article 177 of the Civil Procedure Law itself, may still be invoked. In such cases, creditors can file a request for correction under Paragraph 3 of Article 58 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People's Republic of China.

The author believes that, to safeguard the stability of the law and the judicial authority of court judgments, undisputed claims—after being reviewed and confirmed by the administrator and verified by the creditors' meeting—should, in principle, be recognized by the court's ruling. Stable, reliable, and effective. Without new facts or evidence, it should be difficult to amend or overturn the original civil ruling and the undisputed creditor claims.

However, it is also essential to safeguard the litigation rights of creditors or other objecting parties, as well as their right to verify the factual and legal validity of the claims—and even their right to bypass the 15-day objection period typically imposed during creditor claim review proceedings. While maintaining stable and predictable civil rulings, allowing for the exercise of such rights ensures fairness and equity, thereby enabling a re-examination of the claims when necessary.

Based on current judicial practice and some interpretations, filing or even amending a ruling on an uncontested creditors' list is permitted. However, in judicial practice, even if the procedural standing to sue has been resolved, it remains extremely challenging for creditors who previously objected to overturn a claim that has already been officially confirmed—particularly given the evidentiary requirements and the principle that "the party bringing the suit bears the burden of proof."