[1] In a case where multiple land, which is not a factory foundation under the Factory Mortgage Act, becomes the object of factory mortgage, the standard for determining the sale method of the above land

[2] Whether land which is not farmland and farmland can be sold collectively (negative)

[3] In a case where no building, etc. belonging to a factory is constructed on farmland which is the object of factory mortgage, whether such farmland can be sold en bloc (negative)

[1] Where multiple land, which is not a factory foundation under the Factory Mortgage Act, becomes the object of factory mortgage, the whole of the land is not to be sold collectively on the land of some of them, unless there is a building belonging to a factory or a common property of a factory, etc. on the land of a part. In such a case, in a case where it is recognized by social norms as being habitually used as the site of a factory, it shall not be deemed as the land of a factory building, and it shall not be sold separately from the land of a building or a common property of a factory.

[2] Unless there are special circumstances, land which is not farmland and farmland is not related to the mutual use relationship, and in the case of farmland under the Farmland Act, the purchaser's qualification is limited by the law, so if the farmland and land which is not farmland are sold en bloc, the person who is unable to obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland is unable to file a purchase report, thereby restricting the applicant for purchase. Therefore, if only part of land for auction purpose falls under farmland, the requirements for a blanket sale are not satisfied.

[3] In a case where farmland becomes the object of factory mortgage along with the land or buildings belonging to a factory and the common property of a factory, the land cannot be sold en bloc solely on the ground that it merely becomes the object of factory mortgage unless there is a building belonging to a factory or public property of a factory on the farmland.

[1] Articles 4 and 5 of the Factory Mortgage Act, Article 98 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Article 98 of the Civil Execution Act / [3] Article 4 of the Factory Mortgage Act, Article 98 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 79Ma348 dated November 28, 1969 (Gong1980, 12416) dated December 17, 1979, Supreme Court Order 2001Ma3867 dated August 24, 2001 / [2] Supreme Court Order 2003Ma757 dated September 24, 2004

Geum River Co., Ltd.

Suwon District Court Order 2004Ra12 dated August 30, 2004

The reappeal is dismissed.

1. The court below recognized that among the land in this case, the current status of 1878 square meters and 9984 square meters prior to Leecheon-si ( Address 1 omitted) and ( Address 2 omitted) constituted farmland under the Farmland Act. In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for reappeal.

2. Factory mortgage under the Factory Mortgage Act is intended to secure special value as a whole, with the purport of taking advantage of the fact that the land belonging to a factory or the things attached thereto and the machinery, apparatus, etc. used as a whole should only be a factory facility, and thus, insofar as the public goods, etc. of the land or the building are once the object of factory mortgage, it is so long as it is the object of factory mortgage as well as for the protection of mortgagees, it is socially and economically beneficially beneficial to maintaining special value as it does not constitute a business facility (see Supreme Court Order 84Ma718, Mar. 14, 1985). Since it is not a factory mortgage, if multiple land which belongs to a factory foundation under the Factory Mortgage Act were not constructed as a whole, the land can not be sold separately from the land belonging to the factory, which belongs to 200 factories and the land which belongs to the factory mortgage, for the sole purpose of sale of the land which belongs to the factory or the land which belongs to the factory mortgage, and thus, can only be sold separately on the ground that it cannot be sold separately by the Supreme Court.

As duly determined by the court below, if the present condition of 1878 square meters and 9984 square meters prior to Leecheon-si ( Address 1 omitted) among the subject matter of sale of this case constitutes farmland under the Farmland Act, even if the above land is the subject matter of sale of a factory with the land or building belonging to the factory, it cannot be deemed that the above land belongs to the factory site, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it falls under the land of a factory under Article 4 of the Factory Mortgage Act, and thus, it shall be sold separately from the other land or building belonging to the factory, and the present condition of the sale of the above land, which is farmland, is not allowed by considering it as a whole, just because it becomes the subject matter of a factory mortgage along with the land or building belonging to the factory or the common property of the building and the factory, and even if it fails to meet the requirements for a comprehensive sale, if there is a serious defect in the sale decision, the court of execution shall ex officio refuse the sale pursuant to Article 123(2)1 and 51 of the Civil Execution Act.

On the premise that the decision on the blanket sale of this case is lawful, the court below maintained the decision of the court of execution which rejected the successful bid on the ground that the Re-Appellant, who is the highest bidder, did not submit the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland on the farmland under the Farmland Act. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the decision on the blanket sale where farmland becomes the object of factory mortgage along with the land or building belonging to a factory, but such illegality was just in the conclusion that rejected the successful bid.

3. Meanwhile, the remaining grounds of reappeal cited by the Re-Appellant are all justified in the decision of the court below that there was misconception of facts or any violation of law on the premise that the decision of blanket sale of this case was just (However, the court of execution pointed out that the bid bond offered by the Re-Appellant as the guarantee of bid purchase should be returned by the Re-Appellant because it does not fall under the case where the highest price purchaser, as stipulated by the special sale conditions, failed to submit the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland until the date of decision of sale.

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

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)