[1] Whether the effect of factory mortgage on the land of the factory and the wastewater treatment facilities installed over the land owned by another person adjacent thereto, which is the object of factory mortgage (affirmative)

[2] Criteria for determining whether an accessory is an accessory

[1] In a case where a wastewater treatment facility is installed across a factory site where the right to collateral security was established under the Factory Mortgage Act and the land owned by another person, not the adjacent factory land, considering the structure, form, function, etc. of the facility rather than being consistent with the installed land, it is reasonable to view that it belongs to the owner of the factory, and it is a business facility which forms the whole of the land, building, machinery, and apparatus belonging to the factory, and thus, the effect of factory mortgage established on the land, building, machinery, and apparatus belonging to the factory belongs to the relevant wastewater treatment facility.

[2] An accessory must contribute to the commercial use of the main thing, and a "contributing to the commercial use of the main thing" means that the main thing is to maximize the economic utility of the main thing itself, and even if the main thing is commonly provided to the owner or user of the main thing, the main thing is not an accessory ( while a new wastewater treatment facility forms a single wastewater treatment plant by combining the main thing as a whole in its functional aspect, it cannot be said that the new wastewater treatment facility cannot be deemed as a facility that enables the economic utility of the main thing itself, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as an accessory)

[1] Articles 4 and 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, Article 358 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 100 (1) and 358 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 84Meu269 delivered on March 26, 1985 (Gong1985, 617) (Gong1988, 578), Supreme Court Decision 94Da11606 delivered on February 10, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1935)

[Judgment of the court below]

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Attorney Kim Jae-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 96Na4863 delivered on December 19, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first to third grounds

According to the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 7(1) and 10 of the Factory Mortgage Act, all of the goods provided for the operation and operation of a factory, such as the land or building belonging to the factory, and machinery, apparatus, etc. installed in addition thereto, shall only be the whole of the goods. Thus, the factory mortgage purpose is to identify the above special value and secure it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 69Ma920, Dec. 9, 1969; Supreme Court Order 79Ma348, Dec. 17, 1979; Order 84Ma718, Mar. 14, 1985).

Therefore, as acknowledged by the court below, even if the new wastewater treatment facilities of this case are installed over the land and the non-party 1's ( Address 2 omitted) ownership ( Address 2 omitted) land and the non-party 1's ( Address 3 omitted) land and the non-party 2's ( Address 3 omitted) land owned by the non-party 1, which are the land of this case where the plaintiff acquired the right to collateral security under the Factory Mortgage Act, are located over the non-party 650 square meters, it is reasonable to view that the new wastewater treatment facilities of this case belong to the ownership of the factory of this case in light of the structure, form, and function of the land and the building belonging to the factory of this case and the facilities which are integrated with the land, the machinery, and the machinery of this case, and the factory mortgage of this case which are established on the factory of this case are not the land of this case. The decision of the court below to the same purport is justified, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to factory mortgage or real right principle, and there is no error or omission in the grounds for appeal.

2. On the fourth ground for appeal

An accessory shall contribute to the commercial use of the main thing, and a contribution to the commercial use of the main thing means to ensure the economic utility of the main thing itself. Even if the main thing is offered ordinarily to the owner or user of the main thing, the main thing is not an accessory (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu269, Mar. 26, 1985; 94Da11606, Jun. 10, 1994).

In light of the records, the new wastewater treatment facilities of this case and the old wastewater treatment facilities of this case function as a whole, and form a single wastewater treatment site and perform their functions as a whole. However, since the new wastewater treatment facilities of this case cannot be deemed as a facility that satisfies the economic efficiency of the old wastewater treatment facilities themselves, the new wastewater treatment facilities of this case cannot be deemed as an accessory to the old wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to main and accessory. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are not acceptable.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)