[부동산경락허가][집19(1)민,047]
Even if a successful bid is not permitted, the court of auction shall pronounce a decision, and unless there is a declaration, the highest bidder shall retain his/her status as it is.
Even if a successful bid is not permitted, the court of auction shall pronounce a decision and, unless there is no sentence, the highest bidder shall retain his/her status as it is, and then he/she shall also be an interested party in the auction procedure newly conducted.
Article 638 of the Civil Procedure Act
Appellant 1 et al.
Gwangju District Court Decision 69Ra109 delivered on October 17, 1970
I reverse the original decision.
The court of auction shall revoke the decision to permit the original bid and shall not permit the auction to the auctione's immigration offenders.
As to the grounds for re-appeal by the re-appellant:
In the explanation of its reason, the decision of the court of auction No. 1 was concluded because the appellant No. 1 was designated as the highest bidder on the date of auction and the date of attendance at the auction. On September 18, 1969, the creditor raised an objection to the permission of auction. The court of auction determined No. 1969, Oct. 7, 1969 as the date of auction and issued a new auction order on Oct. 7, 1969 without the permission of auction. The creditor can recognize the fact that the auction was sentenced on Oct. 10, 1969, after the auction was concluded as the highest bidder, and it cannot be deemed that the appellant participated in the above auction as the date of the new auction. Thus, the appellant cannot be considered as an interested party under Article 30 of the Auction Act, and it cannot be deemed that the appellant is an auction claiming the permission of auction under Article 641, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, and dismissed the appeal based on the premise that it is an interested party.
However, at the auction date of September 16, 1969, the re-appellant was the highest bidder and the auction was terminated. However, according to the case records, even though the creditor raised an objection against the auction, the auction court again issued a new auction order and held the auction permission order, the auction court did not make a decision on whether the above-appellant's highest bidder's auction is the auction, and even if the auction court did not permit the auction, the auction court shall always make a decision on the auction, and the auction court shall be exempted from the liability as the auction, and the return of the deposit it paid is the legal principle that the highest bidder shall be exempted from the liability as the auction, and so long as the re-appellant did not permit the auction, even if the above-appellant had the status of the highest bidder as the auction, and even if the auction order again held the status of the new auction, it is unlawful after the second auction order was cancelled, and if the second auction order did not hold a new position as the interested party's second auction order after the second auction order, the second auction order has no reason to reverse the auction order.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Articles 413(2) and 407 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet