In order to display whether office supplies, such as a glnet, etc., are public goods of a factory, it is necessary to examine specifically the method of using the place where the things are installed, and all other circumstances.

Since the effect of the mortgage established on the land or building belonging to a factory under Article 7 of this Act is limited to the goods to be integrated in addition thereto, and the machinery, apparatus, and other goods installed thereon, the decision of permission for auction price shall be delivered in a lump sum to apply for auction of the goods.

Article 4 of the Factory Mortgage Act, Article 5 of the Factory Mortgage Act, Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

Han Han Bank Co., Ltd.

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 70Na271 delivered on May 20, 1971

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's agent Kim Jong-hee.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

According to the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the articles listed in the list of No. 1 of the judgment of the court below shall not be deemed to be office goods such as typnets, which are the objects of mortgage under Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, or machinery, apparatus, and other goods installed on the land, which are the objects of mortgage under Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act. However, it is thought that whether the above articles can become public goods of a factory can not be deemed to be public goods of a factory without specifically examining the place where the articles are installed, its usage, and all other circumstances. According to the records, the court below did not make any further examination on this point, and recognized facts as above. Such wife of the court below shall be deemed to have committed an error of law due to insufficient deliberation.

(2) As to ground of appeal No. 2

The judgment of the first instance, which the court below cited in the judgment of the court below, held that even if based on the plaintiff's previous testimony, the plaintiff's pledge cannot be acknowledged on the goods listed in the above list No. 1, and according to the testimony of the non-party witness (Records No. 296), there is no evidence to acknowledge the pledge on the above goods of the plaintiff. The court below, however, should not escape from the category of the evidence violation against the rules of evidence.

(3) As to the third ground for appeal:

According to the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, as long as all from the purchase of raw materials to the sale of products are conducted under the name and responsibility of the internal and external stock company, it is evident that the above company is the owner of the goods listed in the 2 and 3 list attached to the judgment of the court below. However, according to the evidence No. 8 of the first instance court, although the above goods are to be purchased or sold in the name of the internal and external stock company for convenience, the above goods shall be purchased or sold in the name of the internal and external stock company for convenience, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the ownership substantially belongs to the plaintiff, it shall not be a law that does not claim that the plaintiff's ownership is the owner in the relation to the defendant.

Therefore, without making a decision on the remaining grounds of appeal, this appeal has already been justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original judgment. This decision is delivered with the opinions of the participating judges.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)