Abstract: Article 552 of the Civil Code does not provide for the legal right of recovery after the third party who joins the debt has not agreed on the right of recovery with the original debtor, which seems to be a dominant legal loophole. Article 51 of the Judicial Interpretation of the General Principles of Contracts provides for the filling of this legal loophole, with the right of claim for unjust enrichment as the primary claim basis for the right of recovery of the debtor and the use of an open-ended claim basis description. This has once again led to divergent opinions on the claim of unjust enrichment on the basis of the claim of the debtor, the claim of no-cause management, the claim of joint and several debt recovery, the claim of not really joint and several debt recovery, and the claim of the right of recovery of the guarantor by analogy. According to the civil law interpretation path combining the interpretation of the meaning, purpose and system, the legal right of recovery of the debt joiner is more in line with the legal principle and logic, more in line with the principle of fairness, reasonableness and equal compensation, and more conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the third party joining the debt.

Keywords: Debt Join the right of recovery The transfer of claims.