摘要： 《物权法》第191条的制度逻辑是通过限制抵押物的转让来落实抵押权的追及效力之缓和。限制抵押物的转让，以保护抵押权人的利益为目的，在制度结构上并产生了恶化抵押人和抵押物取得人不利地位的客观效果，此与照顾抵押人的利益为目的而缓和抵押权的追及效力的制度，难以相通。在理论和制度结构上，也难以寻找到限制抵押物的转让和抵押权的追及效力之缓和相互连接的平衡点。中国民法典应以抵押物的自由转让和抵押权的追及效力为基础，通过创设抵押人的除去抵押请求权、抵押权人的代价清偿请求权和抵押物取得人的代价清偿除去抵押请求权，以实现抵押权的追及效力的缓和。

关键词: 抵押权追及效力, 抵押物的转让, 除去抵押请求权

Abstract: 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.

Key words: Hypotheca, Trace Effect, Transfer of Collateral, Claim to Remove the Hypotheca