The effect of the factory mortgage shall be the requirement to be attached to the public goods of the factory, such as machinery installed on the land or building of the factory.

In full view of the provisions of Article 4, Article 5, Article 7, Article 47, Article 53 of the Factory Mortgage Act and Article 186 of the Civil Act, it shall be interpreted that the public goods of the machinery, apparatus and other factories installed in the land or building of the factory shall have the effect of factory mortgage only if they are entered in the machinery, apparatus list stipulated in Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act.

Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 1 and one other Plaintiffs, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Appellant Cheong Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na2450, 2451 Decided May 18, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

As to the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s ground of appeal:

1. Article 4 of the Factory Mortgage Act provides that with respect to the effect of a mortgage established by the owner of a factory on the land belonging to the factory, it shall be added to the land except for the building and its entirety, and the above provisions shall apply mutatis mutandis to the mortgage established by the owner of the factory over the building belonging to the factory pursuant to Articles 7, 47, and 53. Meanwhile, according to Articles 7, 47, and 53 of the same Act, where the owner of the factory applies for a registration of the mortgage over the land or building belonging to the factory, a list of machinery, apparatus, and other facilities installed on the land or building, which are the object of the mortgage pursuant to Articles 4 and 5 shall be submitted. Further, the list of machinery, apparatus shall be considered as part of the registry, and the owner shall apply for a registration of change without delay if there is a change in the matters listed on the list of machinery, apparatus, etc.

The court below's decision that the effect of factory mortgage does not extend to the grassland of this case, which is not entered in the machinery and apparatus list, is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act or by omitting judgment.

The theory of the lawsuit is that the representative director of the gold Forced Co., Ltd., who agreed to include the above grassland in the object of the right to collateral security in the object of the right to collateral security even though the defendant agreed to do so with the defendant, and the additional security was established with the knowledge of it, but the above payment contract was made in collusion with the plaintiffs during the delay of the procedure, and the above payment contract was made in collusion with the plaintiffs, and thus the above payment contract was null and void as the plaintiffs actively participated in the violation of the right to collateral security of the representative director of the above non-party company, and the decision of the court below which did not investigate the evidence was unlawful. However, the argument that the above payment contract is null and void for the reasons such as the theory of the

2. In addition, the theory of lawsuit is an attack against the defendant's argument that the payment contract between the non-party company and the plaintiffs constitutes a fraudulent act. However, the court below did not err in the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, incomplete deliberation, and lack of reasoning, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles, and the argument of the misapprehension of the legal principles is also based on facts different from the facts recognized by the court

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

Justices Yoon In-bok (Presiding Justice)