论未经同意之抵押物转让合同的效力

The Effect of the Contract for the Transfer of Mortgaged Item with no Consent

《物权法》第191条第2款限制未经抵押权人同意之抵押物转让,性质上非倡导性规范,而系效力性强制规范。《物权法》不承认抵押权的追及效力,而选择了事前限制的方案,因此,建立在追及效力基础上的解释结论,难以成立。由于我国不采纳物权行为理论,《物权法》第191条第2款中“不得”限制的对象非处分行为;“不得转让”亦非限制物权变动的效果,否则,在已实际交付动产的情形,无法阻止所有权发生变动。将“不得转让”解释为对抵押人处分权能的限制,从而依循《合同法》第51条,将转让合同的效力认定为效力未定,不违背立法目的,又不致过分阻碍财产流通,较为适宜。但在编纂民法典时,采取抵押权的追及效力的制度设计,无疑是更为适宜的立法方案。

According to the Properties Law of the PRC(Article 191,Item 2):the transfer of mortgaged item without the consent of the mortgagee is restricted.This provision is mandatory rather than recommended.The Properties Law of the PRC does not grant recourse force to the mortgagee’s right.Instead,it chooses the before-hand restriction approach.Hence,theories based on recourse force do not work.Since China does not adopt the theory of Juristic Act of Real Right,the target being restricted by item 2 of Article 191 of the Properties Law of the PRC does not include the disposal action;nor the effect of the change to real right;otherwise,in the event that the personal property has been delivered,such provision could not prevent the change of ownership.If we interpret item 2 of Article 191 as imposing restriction on the mortgagor’s capacity of disposal,the effect of the transfer contract could be held to be pending pursuant to Article 51 of the Contract Law.Such approach will not violate the purpose of the legislation or impede properties circulation too much.As a result,it should be a sensible approach.However,when codifying the civil code,recognition of the recourse force is undoubtedly a more appropriate legislative plan.