A. Whether the object of the factory mortgage should be put up for auction en bloc

(b) Auction of land which does not exist but is the object of factory mortgage used as a factory site;

1. The land, buildings, machinery, apparatus, etc. which is the object of the factory mortgage shall be owned with a special value which is composed of a package auction without being separated from the land, buildings, apparatus, etc. which is the object of the factory mortgage for not only the mortgagee

2. If a building, machinery, apparatus, etc. which can be deemed to belong to a factory on the land which is the object of factory mortgage is not installed, and if it is deemed to be used as the site of a factory by social norms, it shall be deemed to be the same as the land on which the factory building is attached, and it shall not be divided for auction separately from such building, machinery, apparatus, etc.

Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act

Supreme Court Order 69Ma920 Dated December 9, 1969; Supreme Court Order 70Ma935 Dated February 19, 1971; Supreme Court Order 69Ma908 Dated November 28, 1969

Appellant 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Daejeon District Court Order 78Ra40 dated September 14, 1979

The original decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

Re-appellant's re-appeal ground is examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below dismissed all appeals by the court of first instance on the ground that the part of the auction permission on the above real estate and the machinery, apparatus, apparatus, etc. stated in the first list of the attached Table No. 2 is unlawful and thus the auction was conducted to enforce the right to collateral security pursuant to Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, and that the real estate, machinery, apparatus, etc. listed in the first list of the attached Table No. 2 is owned by the company of Daejeon Motor Vehicle Industrial Co., Ltd. and the land listed in the second list of the above second list is owned by the company of Daejeon Motor Estate Industrial Co., Ltd., and that if there are two or more owners of the above objects of factory mortgage and there are different owners, the court of first instance can conduct a divisional auction without conducting a package auction.

However, considering the above provisions of Articles 4, 5, 7 (1) and 10 of the Factory Mortgage Act comprehensively, since the land belonging to the factory and the machinery, apparatus, and so forth are all available for factory mortgage, they can only exercise special value. Thus, as long as the above special value can be identified as factory mortgage, the land, structure, and apparatus are once the object of factory mortgage, it can not be separated from the land which are the object of factory mortgage and the object of factory mortgage and it can not be seen that it is economically beneficially beneficially beneficial to the above 977 of the Factory Mortgage Act, even if it is not necessary for the debtor or owner (see Supreme Court Order 69Ma920, Dec. 9, 1969; Supreme Court Order 70Ma935, Feb. 19, 197).

Therefore, the original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division, which is the original judgment, to review it again. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)