At present, the reasons behind the loss of basic pension insurance benefits are diverse and complex, whilst the relationships involved are mixed. Problems such as differing calculation methods and compensation standards, unclear compensation function and concept of protecting rights and interests of claimants, and the crossover dispute resolution procedures between public and private interests have raised challenges for the judicial practice, making the establishment of rules for compensating this type of loss more difficult. Through reviewing literature, it is found that there is an administrative tendency in the compensation and disputes of existing basic pension insurance benefits, which does not fully reveal the nature of the social cooperative affairs of basic pension insurance. Thus, perspectives and principles of social law should be used to reinterpret the issue. The current research suggests that three major relationships involved in basic pension insurance be kept relatively independent, and the basic pension insurance contract be defined as a "debt under social law", while social security agencies should be regarded as social debtors instead of administrative entities, forming the claims of the society and the rules of claims. In view of the particularity of the basic endowment insurance rights, a set of social debt relief rules of providing appropriate compensation or supplement payment to compensate for the loss of rights for basic pension insurance should be established, in addition to continuing fulfilling its social obligations and the priority given to restoration to the original state.