The nature of the abstract power of the mortgage provided for in Article 9 of the Factory Mortgage Act;

A. The decision to commence the auction on the land and buildings of the factory and on the items on the list under Article 7 of this Act was rendered, but the location of the items on the list cannot be known, and thus, the decision to permit the auction by proceeding the auction procedure only with respect to the land and buildings of the factory without revising the original decision to commence the auction without exercising the right to demand a delay is lawful.

B. The right to demand the reimbursement of the mortgage as provided in this Article is defined as the right of the mortgagee, not as the duty to exercise its power against the mortgagee or the court of auction.

Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, Article 9 of the Factory Mortgage Act

Re-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 66Ra38 delivered on June 10, 1966

The reappeal is dismissed.

The Re-Appellant's grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the original decision, the court below rejected the application for voluntary auction as a right to enforce the auction as a result of the execution of mortgage right under the Factory Mortgage Act with the land and the building which were the land and the building of the factory, and the machinery, apparatus, etc. which had been installed. However, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the auction procedure or decision of the court's holding that the auction procedure and the purport of the above decision did not have any error in the execution of mortgage right as to the above auction as a right to enforce the auction as a right to enforce the auction as the object of the above list under Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, because the items recorded in the list are not existing in the factory's land and the building, and it did not exist in the factory's land and the building's auction procedure, and it did not have any error in the decision of the court's holding that the auction procedure or decision of the court's holding that there was no error of law as to the execution of mortgage right as a right to demand auction as a right to demand auction as well as the purport of the above decision of the auction.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Articles 413(2) and 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)