(a) Whether land or building which is the object of factory mortgage and the public property of the factory installed thereon must be put up for auction en bloc (affirmative);

B. Whether the effect of the mortgage on the property owned by a third party, not a mortgager, although it is stated in the list as being the object of factory mortgage (negative)

(a) In the case of auction by the exercise of mortgage under the Factory Mortgage Act, the auction shall be held en bloc, as it is not always consistent with the land or building which is the object of factory mortgage, and the machinery, apparatus and other things installed thereon, and therefore, it must be systematically integrated;

(b) Even if it is stated in the list as the object of mortgage pursuant to the provisions of Articles 4 and 5 of the Factory Mortgage Act, it cannot affect the said mortgage if it is owned by a third party who is not a mortgager.

(a)Articles 4 and 5(b) of the Factory Mortgage Act;

A. Supreme Court Order 70Ma935 Dated February 19, 1971 (No. 1985,708) 79Ma348 Dated December 17, 1979 (Gong1980,12416) 84Ma718 Dated March 14, 1985 (Gong1985,708)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Daejeon District Court Order 92Ra28 dated June 12, 1992

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In the event of auction by the execution of mortgage under the Factory Mortgage Act, since it is an organic integration with the land or building which is the object of factory mortgage and the machinery, apparatus and other things installed thereon, it shall be put to auction en bloc. On the other hand, even if it is stated in the list as the object of mortgage pursuant to Articles 4 and 5 of the Factory Mortgage Act, if it is owned by a third party who is not the mortgager, it shall not have the effect of the mortgage.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that if a third party's lawsuit is filed against a part of the list stipulated in Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, and a provisional disposition order is issued to suspend the auction procedure for such part of the goods, the auction court shall separate only the auction procedure for such part of the goods, and it is reasonable to suspend the auction procedure for the whole of the goods, not the auction procedure for the remaining goods, and it shall not permit the auction for the re-appellant, and it shall not be deemed that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the blanket auction for factory mortgage, such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)