(a) The case holding that the underground oil storage tank in an oil station is consistent with the land;

(b) The case holding that the abandonment of a gas station is an accessory to the building of the gas station;

(c) Where a general mortgage is created under the Civil Act, not a factory mortgage, on the buildings or lands of the factory, the scope on the effect of such mortgage; and

(a) The case holding that the oil storage tank was consistent with the land on the ground that excessive expenses were incurred in separating the oil storage tank laid underground in the underground of the gas station from the land, and that the economic value of the oil storage tank should be significantly decreased if discovered separately;

(b) The case holding that, in light of the fact that the gas station's main amusement is an independent object, but it was installed on the ground of the land on which the gas station business was located, which is an apparatus connected to the oil storage tank to the user to supply the oil, and that the gas station installed was constructed from the beginning to the construction of the building for the gas station business, it is an accessory attached to the gas station's building for the purpose of common use of the gas station.

(c) In establishing factory mortgage under the Factory Mortgage Act, the effect of factory mortgage shall be effective only on the list of the machinery, apparatus, etc. of the factory, constructed on the building, and apparatus stipulated in Article 7 of the same Act. However, in the case where general mortgage is established on the factory building or land, it is not superior to the Factory Mortgage Act in the case where a list under Article 7 of the same Act is not prepared, and the effect of such mortgage shall naturally extend to the accessory to the factory building or land, or to the accessory thereto, under Article 358 of the Civil Act.

(a) Article 256(b) of the Civil Act; Article 100(c) of the Civil Act; Article 358 of the Factory Mortgage Act; Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act

A.B.Supreme Court Order 93Ma116 Dated April 6, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1356) (Gong193Sang, 1356). Supreme Court Decision 94Da2138 Decided June 29, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2520) Decided February 9, 1988, Supreme Court Decision 94Da11606 Decided June 10, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1935) (Gong195Ha, 2520)

Dongyang Fuel Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na23031 delivered on December 21, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party friendly Petroleum Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party company) excavated the ground of the land of this case and made concrete retaining walls and laid down a concrete coverr after installing the oil storage tank on the land of this case in addition to constructing the building of this case used as a gas station office, etc. on the land of this case for the oil station business, and the non-party friendly Petroleum Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party company) installed the oil storage tank on the land of this case and installed a concrete coverr, separate from the building of this case, constructed a steel pipe Pib roof 144mmp above floor of this case on the land of this case, and installed a concrete beer under its bottom and connected with the above oil storage tank with the above oil storage tank to the underground pipe business, and it was not consistent with the purpose of the land of this case where the oil storage tank of this case was installed with the drawings of this case, and it was not consistent with the above 30mphere and the above drawings of this case.

The above fact-finding by the court below seems to be legitimate in light of the records, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of litigation, etc.

However, while the court below judged that the oil storage tank in this case was consistent with the land in this case, it is impossible without damaging a concrete cover to separate the oil storage tank from the buried land as one of the grounds for the decision that the oil storage tank in this case was consistent with the land in this case. Thus, the oil storage tank in this case is inconsistent with the land in this case because the oil storage tank does not cover the above concrete cover, and the oil storage tank cannot be separated from the above concrete cover, and the corresponding objects cannot be separated without damage. Thus, the oil storage tank in this case is inconsistent with the land. However, it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that the oil storage tank in this case was consistent with the land. However, if the facts are found separately, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the economic value will significantly decrease if the oil storage tank is excavated separately from the land. Thus, the oil storage tank in this case is consistent with the land in this case.

Therefore, the lower court’s conclusion that the instant oil storage tank was consistent with the instant land is justifiable, and the lower court’s error in its reasoning is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment, and eventually, the argument that the instant oil storage tank’s error in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the defect in its reasoning or conforming material is without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the abandonment of this case is an independent object, but it was installed on the ground of the land in this case where the building of this case was located for the business of gas stations and it was constructed as a building for the business of gas stations from the beginning to the beginning, and considering these factors, the abandonment of this case continuously works to achieve the economic utility of the building of this case itself. Thus, it shall be deemed as an accessory attached to the building of this case for the business purpose of water stations.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below with the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of accessories like the theory of lawsuit. The precedents cited by the theory of lawsuit are inappropriate. We are without merit.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

In general, in establishing factory mortgage under the Factory Mortgage Act, only the land of the factory, machinery, apparatus, etc. installed in the building shall be stated in the list of machinery and apparatus stipulated in Article 7 of the same Act, and the effect of factory mortgage shall take effect by the interpretation of the above Article, and the precedents of the party members (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1514, 1515, Feb. 9, 198) are the same as the theory of lawsuit.

However, in a case where a general mortgage is established on a factory building or land under the Civil Act, the mortgage is naturally effective on the accessory to the factory building or land under Article 358 of the Civil Act, or on the attached objects. In this case, there is no relation with the Factory Mortgage Act, and therefore the effect of the mortgage is excessive to the accessory to the factory building or the land, even if the list under Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act is not prepared.

Therefore, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s mortgage established on the land of this case or building pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Act is naturally extended to the state-owned and oil storage tank of this case, regardless of the submission of the list under Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, since the Plaintiff’s mortgage established on the land of this case or building was an accessory to the gas station of this case and the oil storage tank of this case was consistent with the land of this case.

Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the misunderstanding of legal principles or the theory of lawsuit against the precedents of the Supreme Court as to the scope of validity of mortgage right and factory mortgage. Therefore, all of the arguments are without merit.

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)