Since the effect of a mortgage established on the land or building belonging to a factory under Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act is limited to the things to be integrated in addition, and the machinery, apparatus, and other things installed thereon, the application for auction against the real estate and machinery, apparatus, minimum auction price, and declaration of permission for auction shall be made in a lump sum.

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 application for auction shall be filed in a lump sum.

Article 4 of the Factory Mortgage Act, Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act

Appellant 1 et al.

Daejeon District Court Order 70Ra82 dated December 15, 1970

The reappeal is dismissed, respectively.

Re-Appellant 1’s ground of reappeal

According to the records, it is clear that the mortgage on the object of auction in this case is established by Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, and the effect of the mortgage on the land or building in this case shall be extended to the public goods of both the things constituting a whole unit of the mortgage and the machinery, apparatus, and other factories installed thereon, and in carrying out the mortgage, the mortgage shall be applied in a lump sum, and the minimum auction price shall be determined in a lump sum, and the auction price shall also be determined, and the auction permission shall also be declared in a lump sum upon receiving a report on a lump sum auction price. Therefore, the court below's dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the court below was just because the decision of the first instance which rejected the successful bid by dividing the land, building, machinery, and apparatus which were the object of the auction in this case, was just, and there is no independent opinion that the court below's justifiable decision is discussed in the opposite position.

The re-appellant 2 should dismiss the re-appeal under Articles 413(2) and 399 of the Civil Procedure Act since the re-appeal was lawful, but the re-appeal did not include the grounds for re-appeal in the court and did not submit a re-appeal within the statutory period.

Therefore, each reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)