(2) The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

(3) The costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

In the judgment of the court below, the court below held that inasmuch as the defendant agreed to withdraw the above auction of this case and the defendant is liable to withdraw the above auction of this case, the plaintiff raised an objection on the ground that it could suspend the auction procedure, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff could suspend the auction procedure. However, even though the court agreed to withdraw the auction procedure in progress, in case where the auction real estate belonging to the other party has been adjudicationd against a third party due to salt price, the owner of the other party real estate at auction did not take any other appropriate measures against the auction procedure on the ground of the agreement to withdraw the auction and did not prevent the successful bid, it cannot be said that there was a negligence on the other party in causing damages due to the failure to withdraw the auction procedure of this case.

However, the decision of the court below as above should be based on the erroneous application of the comparative negligence doctrine.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff shall be reversed, and this part shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(2) Next, we examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's agent Lee Nam-ok.

(A) On the first ground for appeal

In full view of relevant evidence, the secured claim in this case is that the defendant is the defendant, but in consideration of external circumstances, was entrusted to the non-party 1 (the person employed by the defendant), and on August 10, 1963, the name of the mortgagee on the registry was also the name of the non-party 1, and on August 10, 1963, the plaintiff was urged to repay 20,000 won of the principal and interest of the secured claim in this case to the defendant through the non-party 2, who was a judicial assistant, and to withdraw the request for auction that the defendant

Examining the above process of documentary evidence by the court below through the record, there is no violation of law as to documentary evidence.

The court below rejected the part of the evidence No. 4 (Examination of Suspect against the defendant), the evidence No. 5 (Police's written opinion of the police), and the part unfavorable for the plaintiff among the testimony of Non-party No. 1-1 and Non-party No. 2.

In addition, examining the testimony of Non-party 1 at the court below, it is true that the testimony to the effect that the argument points out is not visible. Nevertheless, the court below erred by pointing out the testimony in the form of such testimony, but it is not possible to affect the judgment of the court below.

According to the facts established by the court below, 3,000 won of the auction expense to be paid by the plaintiff is clear that the purpose of the auction expense to be paid by the plaintiff is the condition of cancelling the registration of creation of mortgage later, and there is no argument

욧컨대 원심판결에는 증거에 의하지 아니하고 사실을 인정하였거나 그밖에 채증법칙위반의 허물이 있다고 말할수 없다.

(B) On the second ground of appeal:

According to the provisions of Article 25 of the Auction Act, the effect of withdrawal of the request for auction can not be generated only by the intention of the creditor, regardless of the degree of progress of auction.

However, according to the records, there is no evidence or evidence showing that the defendant had no effect on the withdrawal of the request for auction by only the defendant's declaration of withdrawal at the time of the defendant's agreement that the defendant would not withdraw the request for auction to the plaintiff until the court below.

In such a case, even though the court below did not examine the progress of the auction at the time, it cannot be said that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the failure of hearing or the withdrawal of the request for auction in the court below.

(C) On the third ground of appeal:

As seen above, in fact-finding, the court below recognized the following facts: (a) on August 10, 1963, that the secured debt of this case is not owned by Nonparty 1 but owned by the defendant; and (b) on August 10, 1963, the defendant would receive the auction expense of KRW 3,000 from the plaintiff last and promised to withdraw the first request for auction; and (c) there was no permit from the empirical rules.

In addition, the part of the testimony of the non-party 1 of the witness witness is legitimately rejected by the court below.

Furthermore, the issue is that the Plaintiff did not take any remedy to block the above auction procedure, but any negligence is not attributable to the Plaintiff in the above case.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the authority to transfer a red net holiday.