[부동산경락허가결정에대한재항고][집17(4)민,121]
The auction court requested two financial institutions to appraise the auction real estate, one of them was unable to make an appraisal at one location, and another's appraisal report is not erroneous in determining the lowest price according to the result of the latter's appraisal if there is an appraisal.
Although the auction court requested two financial institutions to appraise the object of auction, one financial institution was unable to report on the extreme part of them, and other financial institutions did not err by determining the minimum auction price according to the result of the appraisal.
Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans by Financial Institutions
Appellant 1 et al.
Seoul Central District Court Order 69Ra659 dated August 6, 1969
All reappeals are dismissed.
The second ground for reappeal of the re-appellant is examined.
In the auction court's announcement of the auction date of 10:00 on July 10, 1969, it cannot be deemed that the indication of 3,141 won (record 195) on the two lots of land, which was pointed out by the theory of the lawsuit on the auction date of 10:00 on the real estate, is correct. However, in light of the fact that it was written in the part indicating the site in the list of real estate, which is the object of the auction in a case where the above two lots of land and the above buildings are sold en bloc, it can be deemed that it was an indication as a public charge on the above two lots of land. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the incorrect indication of the public charge constitutes an illegal act in the public announcement of the auction date, as argued in the theory of the lawsuit, it is unreasonable to discuss
The second ground for appeal is examined.
This case is the auction case based on the overdue loan of a financial institution, and the auction court requested one bank and one bank to appraise the minimum auction price for the real estate for auction purpose, and the former report on the affiliated building 2 p.m. among the real estate was stated in the purport that it is impossible to appraise the real estate, and the latter report was stated in the purport that it is 30,000 won. Thus, even if the auction court decided the minimum auction price of the building in accordance with the subsequent report and publicly announced it as 30,000 won, the auction court requested two financial institutions to appraise the real estate for auction purpose, and one of them reported that it is impossible to appraise the real estate, so it cannot be viewed that it violated the provisions of Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for Delay Loan of Financial Institutions.
Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, the decision is made in accordance with Articles 413(2), 400, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu