(b) The effect of seizure conducted only on the land or building of the factory on which the factory mortgage is established;

(c) The base point of time for assessing the scope of immunity, where immunity is granted by a special agreement among credit guarantee personnel's liabilities;

B. Public goods of a factory, such as machinery, apparatus, etc. installed on the land or building of the factory shall be entered on the list of machinery and apparatus stipulated in Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, but the effect of the factory mortgage shall be effective, and Article 10 of the Factory Mortgage Act provides that the effect of the mortgage shall be indivisible in cases where the mortgage is effective on machinery, apparatus, etc.

(c) In determining the responsibility of a credit guarantor, where the creditor recognizes the exemption of the amount equivalent to the value of the collateral on the ground that he/she has breached his/her duty to terminate the credit guarantee equivalent to the value of the collateral by acquiring the main security for the machinery and apparatus, the assessment of the value of the collateral shall be based at the time of the acquisition of the collateral, and shall not be based upon the time of the actual acquisition

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above credit guarantee was provided by the plaintiff with respect to the above credit guarantee loan of the non-party joint defendants 1, the Industrial Bank of Korea Co., Ltd. for the above credit guarantee loan of this case by issuing a credit guarantee certificate to the Industrial Bank of Korea, and that the defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant's liability for indemnity against the plaintiff 1, and that the above credit guarantee certificate issued by the plaintiff was "the first time for the acquisition of the principal bond under the Factory Mortgage Act" without the completion of the construction of the above facilities, and that the above credit guarantee certificate violated the credit guarantee agreement of this case, the above credit guarantee certificate of the court below was exempted from the above credit guarantee liability corresponding to the amount of the above credit guarantee loan of 1,000 won. The above joint and several guarantee certificates of the defendants are also based on the premise of the above special agreement. The Industrial Bank of Korea established the above credit guarantee certificate of 1,000 won prior to the completion of the construction of the existing facilities and equipment on August 1, 198, 19888.

2. It is the opinion of the party members established that the effect of the factory mortgage on the machinery, apparatus, and other public structures of the factory installed in the land or building of the factory shall be entered in the list of the factory mortgage (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1514, 1515, Feb. 9, 198; 93Ma116, Apr. 6, 1993; 93Ma116, Apr. 6, 1993). Since Article 10 of the Factory Mortgage Act provides that the effect of the mortgage on the land or building of the factory shall be indivisible if the mortgage is effective on such machinery, apparatus, etc., even in the case of seizure or provisional seizure, the effect of the seizure and provisional seizure shall not extend to the machinery, apparatus, etc., unless the list of such machinery, apparatus, etc., was submitted at all until now.

In addition, in a case where the main security for machinery and apparatus is acquired and the credit guarantee equivalent to the security value is recognized as a discharge equivalent to the security value among the liability of the credit guaranteer for the reason that the credit guaranteeer violated his duty to terminate the credit guarantee equivalent to the security value, the assessment of the security value should be based on the time the security could have been acquired, and it shall not be based on the time the security was actually acquired.

Therefore, the court below held that when the Industrial Bank of Korea added the loans to the machinery and apparatus of this case as the object of the mortgage Nos. 1 and 2, it could acquire the main security with the secured claim, and as such, it is just to take into account the seizure or provisional seizure conducted for only the factory site and building at the time of assessing the value of the security at which the main security for the machinery and apparatus of this case could have been acquired as the secured claim, and there is no violation of law such as the argument.

3. As above, insofar as it is deemed that the Defendants’ liability for indemnity against the Plaintiff, who jointly and severally guaranteed by the Plaintiff as a result of the Plaintiff’s performance of a credit guarantee obligation, was limited to the above scope, the scope of liability cannot be expanded due to the following circumstances. Thus, the Plaintiff’s performance of a credit guarantee obligation to the Industrial Bank of Korea, and subsequently, received a mortgage No. 1 and No. 2, which was established by the Industrial Bank of Korea in order to secure a separate claim from the Industrial Bank of Korea, and appropriated it as an auction dividends, and this result in the termination of a credit guarantee through the acquisition of the principal collateral, and thus, the scope of exemption should be reduced as much as the amount of exemption is not consistent with this Opinion. Moreover, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the right of exemption by erroneously identifying the security value of the said machinery and apparatus in violation of the rules of evidence.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)