(b) If the address of the receiver is indicated to a foreign country in the authentic copy of written judgments to be served by public notice, whether such service by public notice shall be served by public notice for service in the foreign country;

C. Whether the auction procedure can continue effectively without notice of the decision on commencing auction (negative)

(d) Decision on permission of an auction and reasons for appeal, which are made without determining the value recorded in the appraisal report appraised not only by excluding the use of the building which is the object of auction but also by 100 square meters or small in consideration of the area, at the lowest auction price as it is;

E. Whether Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Procedure Act apply to realization to distribute the proceeds by auction based on the judgment on partition of co-owned property (negative)

(b) If the address of the receiver is indicated in a foreign country in the authentic copy of the written judgment to be served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the court shall order service by public notice on the premise that the receiver resides in the foreign country. In this case, service by public notice shall follow the method of service by public notice for service to be served in foreign countries in accordance with Article 180

C. The decision on commencing auction is not only giving rise to the validity of the seizure, but also is a judgment which forms the basis of the auction procedure, and it cannot be said that it is effective unless it is notified to the parties. Therefore, the decision on commencing auction may not proceed with the auction procedure effectively without the notification of the decision on commencing auction, regardless

D. In the appraisal of the auction real estate, if an appraiser was aware of the use of the building, and the size of the building was reduced to 100 square meters or small, it cannot be said that there was a serious defect in the decision of the auction court which determined the minimum auction price as it is. Therefore, the decision of the auction court which permitted the successful bid without correcting it and there is a ground for appeal under Articles 642(2) and 633 subparag. 6 of the Civil Procedure Act which are applied mutatis mutandis by Article 728 of the same Act.

E. In the case of realization to distribute the purchase price by attaching all the co-owned properties to auction on the basis of the judgment on partition of co-owned properties, notification of a request for auction to other co-owners in the auction of co-owned properties, and Article 649 and Article 650 of the Civil Procedure Act providing for the preferential right of other co-owners

The decision of approval of the successful bid of this case is revoked and the adjudication is not permitted.

Article 615-2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the court may hold a blanket auction when it recognizes the same person to be adequate to protect the same person by taking into account the location, form, use relationship, etc. of several real estate. Thus, the object of auction of this case is related to mutual use as a building site and its ground building, and if the owner is different by means of a divisional auction, it would be subject to restrictions in mutual use relationship between the building site and the building, as well as to reduce the economic value of the real estate. Therefore, it is reasonable that the court of execution should vest it in the same buyer, and therefore, it is justifiable that the court of execution

Since the Supreme Court's decision on the lawsuit differs from this case, it cannot be applied to this case. There is no reason to discuss.

The grounds of re-appeal (2) are examined.

According to the records, the other party (applicant of this case) ordered the auction order under Article 734 of the Civil Procedure Act on January 15, 1991 after the judgment ordering the sale division of co-owned property, and the auction court ordered the auction order of this case on January 15, 1991. Thus, it can be seen that the decision of this case rendered the auction order of this case on February 19, 1991, indicating the service address of the re-appellant, who is the respondent and owner (hereinafter referred to as the "re-appellant") as the service address of the non-appellant, "U.S. California, California, California, 36A", and ordering the re-appellant to serve the service by public notice on the same day and posted the reasons to the court office on the same day. The auction date of this case was served on February 13, 1991 and the auction order of this case was declared on February 19, 191.

As above, unless there are special circumstances, the court orders service by public notice on the premise that the consignee resides in a foreign country. In this case, service by public notice shall take effect only after two months have elapsed from the date of the first public notice in accordance with Article 180(3) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the decision to commence auction as well as the date of the auction in this case has yet to be served. The decision to commence auction as well as the judgment which forms the basis of the auction procedure and thus becomes the basis of the auction procedure and thus, it cannot be viewed that the auction procedure becomes effective without notifying the parties, and therefore, the court below's decision to commence auction as unlawful under Article 36(2) of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be viewed as holding that the auction procedure cannot take effect without notifying the debtor of the auction date, and therefore, the court below's decision to commence auction as unlawful under Article 26(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, which stated that the reasons for the second public auction procedure cannot take effect at the time of the commencement of auction procedure without notifying the debtor of the auction procedure.

The grounds of re-appeal (3) are examined.

According to the statement in the reasons for appeal, the purport that the decision of permission of the auction of this case was illegal because the Re-Appellant did not notify the auction date and the auction date, and that such reason should not be determined ex officio. Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the appeal of this case was dismissed.

The grounds of re-appeal (4) are examined.

According to the copy of the register of the auction real estate and the Nonparty’s statement of the Nonparty’s statement of the Nonparty’s appraisal correction, among the auction real estate of this case, the building of this case was 2nd underground floor and 173.25 square meters high underground floor, and 1st underground floor was 247.72 square meters, but the first floor was 247.72 square meters high underground, but the first floor was 1st, and it was 2nd underground floor, and it was 6th underground floor, and the other party’s appraiser was 3rd and 6th underground floor, and the auction court’s appraisal price was 6th underground floor as well as 100 square meters high above the actual area of the 1st underground floor, and the court below did not determine the minimum appraisal price of the auction real property of this case as it did not apply mutatis mutandis to the auction decision of this case. The court below did not err in its determination that the auction auction price of this case was 1st,000 square meters below as it did.

The grounds of re-appeal (5) are examined.

Since the auction of this case is a case of selling all the co-owned properties to auction upon the judgment of partition of co-owned properties and realization for distributing the proceeds of sale, Article 649 and Article 650 of the Civil Procedure Act providing notification of request for auction to other co-owners and priority purchase right of other co-owners is not applicable to the auction of this case. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the order of the court below that accepted points (2) and (4) of the grounds for re-appeal is reversed, and this case is sufficient to directly judge the party members, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the decision of permission of adjudication of this case is revoked and that no permission of adjudication

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)