损害抵押权指的是，损害抵押权所具有的价值性利益、支配性利益。可能损害抵押权指的是，虽然在债务履行期限届满之前，抵押权人是否需要援引抵押权尚不明确，但在抵押权存续的整个期间内，损害抵押权利益的行为给抵押权最终的实现带来了危险。转让抵押物可能损害抵押权，指的是抵押人的转让行为与可能损害抵押权之间应当具有法律上的因果关系。

转让抵押物可能损害抵押权，总体上表现为导致抵押物价值降低、导致抵押权灭失、损害抵押权的期限利益。抵押物价值降低表现为：1.在抵押人和债务人为同一主体时，抵押人为了逃避债务，授意受让人过度使用抵押物，导致抵押财产不合理贬损。2.抵押人对抵押物的价值降低具有预见能力，但仍基于过错实施了转让行为。抵押权灭失表现为：1.以动产为客体的抵押权，受正常经营买受人规则影响而灭失。2.动产被转让导致追及难度增加。3.动产之上的抵押权在顺位上劣后于办理抵押登记的价款债权抵押权、留置权。4.以不动产为客体的抵押权，由于存在消费者的超级优先权、居住利益、拆迁安置补偿权权利，导致抵押权事实上无法行使或者可获偿的比例降低。损害抵押权的期限利益表现为：抵押物进入破产程序，抵押人与受让人之间存在关联关系，可能存在利益输送。其他各种情形，均因难以与转让行为产生因果关系而不能适用《民法典》第406条。

从解释论来看，《民法典》第406条以债权保护的方式为抵押权人提供了救济，其实现路径如下。首先，基于抵押合同的性质推定，当事人之间存在“抵押财产可以被转让，但转让行为不得对抵押权造成可能的损害”的默示。其次，抵押人违反该约定时，抵押权人即可基于第406条的规定行使法定变更权，变更抵押合同的履行期限，实现抵押合同的加速到期。再次，加速到期的后果为，由抵押人以转让所得价款向抵押权人承担义务。之所以采取债权保护的方式，原因如下。第一，侵权损害赔偿请求权的成立要求损害的实际存在，但从该条的文义来看，“可能损害”这一表述限制了该请求权的适用。第二，在转让抵押物的情景中，返还原物请求权、消除危险请求权、排除妨害请求权均无法有力地为抵押权人提供救济。因此可以说，《民法典》第406条确实为抵押权人构筑了一道新的防护屏障。

Damage to mortgage means damage to the value interests and dominant interests of mortgage. Possible damage to the mortgage means that although it is not clear whether the mortgagee needs to invoke the mortgage before the expiration of the term of performance of the debt, the act of damaging the interest of the mortgage brings danger to the ultimate realization of the mortgage during the whole period of its existence. The transfer of mortgaged property may damage the mortgage right, which means that there should be a legal causal relationship between the transfer act of the mortgagor and the possible damage to the mortgage right.

The transfer of mortgaged property may damage the mortgage right, which generally results in the reduction of the value of the mortgaged property, the loss of the mortgage right and the damage of the term interest of the mortgage right. The reduction of the value of the mortgaged property is as follows: 1. When the mortgagor and the debtor are the same subject, the mortgagor instructs the assignee to use the mortgaged property excessively in order to escape the debt, resulting in unreasonable derogation of the mortgaged property. 2. The mortgagor has the ability to foresee the decline in the value of the mortgaged property, but still implements the transfer act based on fault. The loss of mortgage is as follows: 1. The mortgage with movable property as the object is lost under the influence of the normal business buyer rule. 2. The transfer of movable property increases the difficulty of tracing. 3. The mortgage right above movable property is inferior to the mortgage right and lien of the proceeds of mortgage registration. 4. The mortgage with real estate as the object, due to the existence of consumers' super priority, residential interests, demolition and resettlement compensation rights, leads to the fact that the mortgage can not be exercised or the proportion of compensation is reduced. The term benefits that damage the mortgage are as follows: the mortgaged property enters the bankruptcy procedure, there is a relationship between the mortgagor and the assignee, and there may be interest transfer. In all other cases, Article 406 of the Civil Code cannot be applied because it is difficult to establish a causal relationship with the transfer.

From the perspective of interpretation, Article 406 of the Civil Code provides relief to the mortgagee in the form of creditor's rights protection, and its realization path is as follows. First of all, based on the nature of the mortgage contract, it is presumed that there is an implied "mortgaged property can be transferred, but the transfer shall not cause possible damage to the mortgage" between the parties. Secondly, when the mortgagor violates the agreement, the mortgagee can exercise the statutory change right based on the provisions of Article 406, change the performance period of the mortgage contract, and realize the accelerated expiration of the mortgage contract. Thirdly, the consequence of accelerating the maturity is that the mortgagor assumes the obligation to the mortgagee with the transfer proceeds. The reasons for adopting the method of creditor's rights protection are as follows. First, the establishment of the right of compensation for tort damages requires the actual existence of damage, but from the context of the article, the expression of "possible damage" limits the application of the right of claim. Second, in the situation of the transfer of mortgaged property, the claim to return the original property, the claim to eliminate the danger, and the claim to exclude the nuisance can not effectively provide relief for the mortgagee. Therefore, it can be said that Article 406 of the Civil Code does build a new protective barrier for mortgagees.