[2] Where part of the subject matter of a successful tender is destroyed before the date of payment of the successful tender price is designated after the decision to permit the successful tender price becomes final and conclusive, whether to permit the reduction (affirmative) and the meaning of the time when part of the subject matter

Even though there is a person who has acquired a mortgage on the real estate after the entry of the decision on commencing auction and the registration of the decision on commencing auction had been made for the purpose of exercising a security right, the court of auction cannot be seen as the "holder of the above real estate recorded in the register" who is an interested party under Article 607 subparagraph 3 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply), which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 728 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 200), but if that person proves such fact in the auction court, the "person who proves the fact

However, in order to file an immediate appeal against a decision of permission or permission of successful bidding by interested parties as stipulated in subparagraph 4 above, such fact shall be attested until the decision of permission of successful bid or permission of successful bid is made. If an immediate appeal is filed after the decision of permission of successful bid or permission of successful bid is made and documents evidencing such fact are submitted only after the decision of permission of successful bid or permission of successful bid, such appeal shall not be an interested party as stipulated in subparagraph 4. Thus, it is unlawful (see Supreme Court Order 94Ma1342, Sept. 13, 1994; Supreme Court Order 2004Ma118, Jun. 14, 2004, etc.).

According to the records, the Re-Appellant 2 filed a reappeal on June 12, 2003, after the decision to permit the successful bid of this case and the decision to appeal against it (U.S. District Court 2003Ra86), and filed a reappeal on June 12, 2003, and only reported to the auction court that was transferred the right to collateral from the person other than the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security) of the auction real estate of this case. After the decision of the court below was notified, the Re-Appellant 3, 4, and 5 filed a reappeal on this point. Meanwhile, the Re-Appellant 3, 4, and 5 filed a reappeal on December 28, 2004, after the decision of successful bid of this case was made by the court below, and simultaneously filed a reappeal on the order of the court below. In light of the above facts and legal principles, it is difficult to view the re-appellant as an interested person who can file a reappeal against the order of the court below. Accordingly, the re-appellant of this case is unlawful.

2. Next, we examine the reappeals' reappeals' reappeals corporation

It is reasonable to view that the successful bidder's application for reduction of the successful bid price has been made to the auction court because the successful bidder's application for reduction of the successful bid price is reasonable in the event that the successful bidder's application for reduction of the price of the successful bid was made to the auction court due to the reasons not attributable to the owner or debtor of the successful bid or the purchaser before the date of payment of the successful bid price was determined, and that the successful bidder's application for reduction of the price of the successful bid price has been made to the auction court (see Supreme Court Decisions 78Ma248, Jul. 24, 1979; 2003Ma165, Dec. 24, 2004; 2003Ma165, Dec. 24, 2004, etc.) and on the other hand, it is reasonable to view that part of the successful bid price's "loss" includes not only physical loss, but also the case where the successful bidder becomes unable to acquire the ownership of the relevant object due to the cancellation

The court below is just in taking measures to reduce the price corresponding to six real estate among the successful bid real estate of this case on the ground that the decision to commence auction was revoked, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reduction of the price in case of partial destruction of the object of successful bid as otherwise alleged in the grounds of

In addition, if a part of the successful bidder is destroyed, there is no ground that the auction court may revoke ex officio the decision to permit the successful bidder even without the application of the successful bidder under the former Civil Procedure Act, and on the other hand, as long as the decision to permit the successful bidder for the six real estate of this case has been revoked, the decision to permit the successful bidder is naturally invalidated. Therefore, even if the court below did not separately decide to revoke the decision to permit the successful bidder and to refuse the successful bidder for the above real estate, any error is not found.

3. Therefore, the reappeal 2, 3, 4, and 5's reappeals are all dismissed. The reappeals by the Re-Appellant 2, 3, 4, and 5 are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)