論抵押權的追及效力及其緩和－－兼論《物權法》第191條的制度邏輯和修正

On the Trace Effect of a Hypotheca and its Mitigation

《物權法》第191條的制度邏輯是通過限制抵押物的轉讓來落實抵押權的追及效力之緩和。限制抵押物的轉讓，以保護抵押權人的利益為目的，在制度結構上並產生了惡化抵押人和抵押物取得人不利地位的客觀效果，此與照顧抵押人的利益為目的而緩和抵押權的追及效力的制度，難以相通。在理論和制度結構上，也難以尋找到限制抵押物的轉讓和抵押權的追及效力之緩和相互連接的平衡點。中國民法典應以抵押物的自由轉讓和抵押權的追及效力為基礎，通過創設抵押人的除去抵押請求權、抵押權人的代價清償請求權和抵押物取得人的代價清償除去抵押請求權，以實現抵押權的追及效力的緩和。

The institutional logic of Article 191 of Property Law is to mitigate the trace effect of a hypotheca by restricting the transfer of collateral. The transfer of collateral is limited so as to protect the interests of the holder of a hypotheca, which gives rise to the objective effect of deterioration of the the provider of a hypotheca (the acquirer of the collateral) on the system structure. This is difficult to connect with the system of mitigating the trace effect of a hypotheca in favor of the provider of a hypotheca. In theory and institutional structure, it is also difficult to find the balance between restricting the transfer of collateral and mitigatingthe trace effect of a hypotheca. In Chinese civil code, it should realize to mitigate the trace effect of a hypotheca by the creation of the claim to remove the hypotheca of the provider of a hypotheca, the claim to subrogate of the holder of a hypotheca by paying off debts, and the claim to remove the hypotheca of the acquirer of the collateral by subrogated payment, based on the free transfer of the collateraland the trace effect of a hypotheca.