我国物权法采取了抵押物未经抵押权人同意不得转让的规定,学说对此指摘颇多,认为违背了当事人意思自由,不合物权法“物尽其用”的立法原则,建议允许抵押物自由转让。但该学说顾此失彼,忽视了对抵押权人的保护,在动产抵押中暴露了其局限性,即使动产抵押采取了登记对抗,也未尽合理。探究立法和学说缺陷之根源皆在忽略了不动产和动产之间的区别,所以未能于当事人间取得良好的利益平衡。 China’s real right law has taken the mortgage without the consent of the mortgagee may not transfer the provisions of the doctrine, pointing to a lot of this, that violated the parties meaning freedom, non-property rights, “make the best use of” the legislative principle, it is recommended to allow collateral freedom transfer. However, this doctrine pays no attention to one another, neglects the protection of the mortgagee, exposes its limitations in the chattel mortgage, and even makes full use of the registration countermeasures against the chattel mortgage. The root causes of exploratory legislation and doctrinal defects are the neglect of the distinction between immovable property and movable property, thus failing to achieve a good balance of interests among the parties.