Measures by an auction court where a decision to suspend an auction procedure is issued after a lawsuit is filed with a third party's interest on a part of the list stipulated in Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act.

If there is a dispute as to whether the effect of factory mortgage on a part of the list stipulated in Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act has on the objects, and a lawsuit by a third party is filed and a decision of provisional disposition ordering the suspension of the auction procedure on the objects has been rendered, the auction court shall separate only the auction procedure on some objects, and shall not proceed with the auction procedure on the remaining objects, but shall continue the auction procedure on the whole objects until the dispute is concluded, but shall continue the auction procedure according to the result of the dispute.

Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act;

Busan District Court Decision 201

Daejeon District Court Decision 201Na2652 decided Feb. 27, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the appellant is that since there is no defect in the auction procedure conducted on February 18, 192 with respect to the goods listed in the attached list No. 1, it is unlawful that the court of original judgment made a decision to reject the appeal even though it is necessary for the highest bidder to permit the auction.

According to the records, the mortgage of this case is a mortgage under Articles 4 and 5 of the Factory Mortgage Act and includes all the items listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 as to the object of the mortgage. The auction court may recognize the fact that the court revoked the adjudication of auction on February 27, 1992 and denied the decision of the auction on the ground that the non-applicant Franchif Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the third party on the items listed in the separate sheet No. 2, which are part of the machinery installed in the factory, on the ground that the non-applicant filed a lawsuit against the third party. Upon receiving the decision of the provisional disposition of auction suspension of the auction procedure as to the items listed in the separate sheet No. 92Ka113, the court held the auction procedure only against the items listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the highest bidder, and the Korea Assets Management Corporation, the trustee of the mortgagee's long-term credit bank (the Korea Assets Management Corporation) filed a complaint on February 27, 1992.

On the other hand, in case of auction by the execution of mortgage under the Factory Mortgage Act, since it is an organic integration with the land or building which is a factory mortgage, and the machinery, apparatus, and other things installed thereon, it shall be put up for auction en bloc. On the other hand, even if the things listed in the list of things which are the object of mortgage pursuant to the provisions of Articles 4 and 5 of the Factory Mortgage Act are owned by a third party who is not a mortgager, it shall not have the effect of mortgage.

Therefore, as in this case, there is a dispute as to whether the effect of the factory mortgage on a part of the list stipulated in Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act extends to the third party's lawsuit, and if the court of auction decides a provisional disposition ordering the suspension of the auction procedure on such part of the goods, it shall not separate the auction procedure on such part of the goods, but shall not proceed with the auction procedure on the remaining goods, but shall continue the auction procedure on the whole goods until the dispute is settled, and shall continue the auction procedure according to the result of the dispute, and it shall be a way to harmonize the two principles as seen above.

Therefore, the decision of the appellant who did not approve the successful bid is justifiable for the appellant who did not approve the successful bid at the auction procedure conducted only with respect to the goods listed in the attached list No. 1. Therefore, the appeal by the appellant who caused the defect is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Long-Term (Presiding Judge) and Second-Term Judge