In a case where the public goods used in a factory are not specified as the object of auction at a ruling on commencement of auction on the land or building which is the object of factory mortgage, or where they are omitted in the appraisal of the object of auction and the specification of goods, whether the goods used in a factory shall be held as a lump sum auction (affirmative), and whether a decision to correct the supplement may be made in case where the goods used in a factory

Articles 4 and 5 of the Factory Mortgage Act provide that the effect of a mortgage established on the land or building belonging to a factory shall extend to the machinery, apparatus, and other factory public goods installed on the land or building concerned. Article 10(1) of the same Act provides that the effect of a seizure on the land or building which is the object of the factory mortgage shall extend to the factory public goods. Thus, in case where a decision to commence the auction on the land or building which is the object of the factory mortgage has been issued at the auction procedure of the court, and the above land or building has been seized, the decision to grant the auction is made en bloc by means of a statutory auction and the factory public goods are also held at the same time, unless there are special circumstances. The auction court does not change even if the auction court did not specify the factory public goods as the object of auction at the decision to grant the auction, or omitted them from the appraisal of the object of auction and specification of the object of auction, unless there are special circumstances.

Articles 197, 210(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 4, 5, 7, and 10(1) of the Factory Mortgage Act

Appellant 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Han-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Order 99Ra1083 dated April 12, 1999

All reappeals are dismissed.

The grounds for reappeal are examined.

Articles 4 and 5 of the Factory Mortgage Act provide that the effect of a mortgage established on the land or building belonging to a factory shall extend to the machinery, apparatus, and other factory public goods installed on the land or building concerned. Article 10(1) of the same Act provides that the effect of a seizure on the land or building which is the object of the factory mortgage shall extend to the factory public goods. Thus, in case where a decision to commence the auction on the land or building which is the object of the factory mortgage has been issued at the auction procedure of the court, and the above land or building has been seized, the decision to grant the auction is made en bloc by means of a statutory auction and the factory public goods are also held at the same time, unless there are special circumstances. The auction court does not change even if the auction court did not specify the factory public goods as the object of auction at the decision to grant the auction, or omitted them from the appraisal of the object of auction and specification of the object of auction, and even if the auction court omitted the factory public goods in the decision to grant the auction, it is merely a clerical error or any other similar error, and thus the auction court may correct it.

(3) According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, since the above real estate subject to auction was the building on the above 2nd floor above the site of Gangnam-gu ( Address 1 omitted) and the above 2nd floor above, and the above building was used for the principal, rent, etc., and the machinery, apparatus and structure listed in the attached list of the court below (hereinafter referred to as "the machinery, apparatus, etc. of this case") were installed. As for the real estate subject to auction of this case, the court below determined that the above 20th auction decision of this case was just based on the above 10th auction ruling of this case, 100 won, 200,000 won, 200 won, 106th auction ruling of this case, 200 won, 30th auction ruling of this case as to the above 9th auction ruling of this case, 20th auction ruling of this case, 195, 30th auction ruling of this case, 40th auction ruling of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing as otherwise alleged in the grounds for reappeal.

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

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)