According to the records, the order of the court below which is subject to the reappeal of this case is to dismiss the appeal by the appellant 1, who is the appellant against the decision of permission of auction on November 28, 1983, Seoul Civil District Court 83Ma12951, and therefore, the appellant 2 and the re-appellant 3 are not interested in auction because the appellant 1 becomes the heir of the above re-appellant 1, who is the owner of the object of auction, and the re-appellant 2 and the re-appellant 3 are non-appellant 1, the owner of the object of auction, and therefore there is no benefit of appeal against the order of the court below. Thus, the reappeal 2 and the re-appellant 3 of this case are illegal.

2. Next, the re-appellant 1's grounds of reappeal are examined.

The gist of the grounds of reappeal is that the auction procedure of this case contains an error of lack of notification to interested parties, and the re-appellant's permission of auction at a price lower than the market price based on the claim without permission, although the re-appellant's absence of debtor with respect to ○○○○○, was illegal. However, the above reasons do not constitute grounds for reappeal as stipulated in Articles 13 and 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and therefore, they cannot become legitimate grounds

3. Therefore, we dismiss the reappeal 1's reappeal 2 and 3's reappeal 3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)