(2) It is confirmed that the items listed in the annexed Table 1, which are established in the Daegu Factory of the Plaintiff Company located in Daegu-dong 447-2, Daegu-gu, Daejeon-dong, was owned by the Plaintiff.

(3) The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

(4) All the costs of lawsuit are divided into two parts of the first and second trials, and one of them is the defendant, and the other is the plaintiff's own burden.

Judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

On the premise that the items originally stated in the attached list are owned by the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed a claim to confirm that the defendant's refusal of compulsory execution against the items listed in the attached list and the items listed in the attached list are owned by the plaintiff as a title of debt against the non-party Nit Industries Co., Ltd., and then, due to compulsory execution above, the defendant auctioned the items listed in the attached list in the attached list and delivered them to the defendant, and the claim for delivery of the items listed in the attached list No. 1, as stated in the purport of the claim, shall be changed to the plaintiff's ownership confirmation and the claim for delivery of the items listed in the attached list No. 2, as stated in the purport of the claim.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is dismissed as without merit.

(2) We examine the following merits:

As a result, the defendant applied for compulsory execution against the movable property recorded in the attached list to the Daegu District Court on the non-party 1's executory exemplification of non-party 224, which belongs to the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office, on the non-party 1's non-party 2's executory exemplification of non-party 3's non-party 4, non-party 4 and non-party 3's testimony of the above non-party 1's testimony of the court below and the non-party 3's testimony of the above non-party 4's testimony of the above non-party 1's testimony of the court below and the non-party 3's testimony of the above non-party 4, non-party 4, non-party 4 and non-party 3's testimony of the above non-party 3's testimony of the above non-party 1's testimony of the above non-party 4, which are the plaintiff 1's co-party 3's auction of the above plaintiff 1's auction.

Even if the above auction is null and void, the defendant claims that the goods recorded in the attached list were immediately acquired by the above auction. Thus, considering the above Eul 1,2, and 4-1 through 4-4 without dispute over the establishment, and the whole purport of the party's pleading in the testimony of the non-party 2 on July 2, 1970, the defendant was awarded a successful bid of KRW 640,000, and on February 16, 1971, the above attached list 2 was delivered to the defendant, and the defendant was actually carried out, and the items listed in the attached list 1 were not delivered to the defendant at that place, and the defendant did not know that the above part of the attached list was no more than 16,00,000, and since the execution of seizure on June 15, 1970 and the defendant entered the factory of the plaintiff company, which is the location of the plaintiff company, and the defendant did not know that the above part of the attached list was no more than 16,000.

The plaintiff asserted that the above goods are created by the Factory Mortgage Act on September 16, 1968 to the Korean Commercial Bank, Co., Ltd., the object of disposal by dividing only the above goods pursuant to Article 10 of the Factory Mortgage Act, and thus the defendant cannot acquire them immediately. However, according to the result of the verification of registration documents by the court below and the party concerned and the statement No. 7-1 through No. 3, the plaintiff's factory mortgage is not a factory foundation but a factory foundation mortgage by Article 4 and No. 5 of the Factory Mortgage Act, and the above goods are merely included in the list under Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, so it cannot affect the third party's immediate acquisition pursuant to Article 9 (2) of the same Act. Therefore, the above assertion is groundless.

If so, the plaintiff's claim for the confirmation of ownership of the goods listed in the attached list No. 1 among the claims of the plaintiff is justified, and the claim for the delivery of the goods listed in the attached list No. 2 shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the original judgment is partially contrary to this judgment, it is modified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 92 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)