[2] Requirements for notification or delivery under Article 3 of the former Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans to Financial Institutions

[3] Whether a decision to grant a successful bid should be served on the interested parties (negative)

[2] The notification or service under Article 3 of the former Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans by Financial Institutions (repealed by Act No. 5693, Jan. 29, 199) takes effect by sending the notice or service to the address (where the address is reported to the court, such address) recorded on the pertinent real estate registration injury at the time of filing a request for auction. Whether the delivered document has been actually delivered, or whether it has been impossible to be delivered, shall not affect the above effect.

[3] According to Articles 728, 638(1) and 640(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, since the decision to grant a successful bid is stipulated to be announced on the bulletin board of the court, it is sufficient to follow such procedures and it is not necessary to deliver the decision to the interested parties.

1. As to the unlawful assertion of service or notification

A. Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Non-Performing Loans (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Non-Performing Loans") was repealed by Act No. 5693 of Jan. 29, 199, which provides for special cases concerning notification or service at the auction procedure conducted by a financial institution upon the request of the financial institution. However, Article 5693 of the above Act provides transitional measures for the voluntary auction procedure, which is in progress at the time of the enforcement of the above Act, Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Non-Performing Loans, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Non-Performing Loans"), but Article 45-2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc.), which is still in progress from the date of enforcement of the above Act, Article 99 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. 9.

On the other hand, notice or service under Article 3 of the Special Assistance to Loans in Arrears takes effect by sending it to the address (if the address is reported to the court) indicated on the relevant real estate register injury at the time of request for auction, and whether delivery has been actually made or not, it does not affect the above validity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 90Ma755, Nov. 2, 1990; 94Ma2134, Jun. 5, 1995; 97Da39865, Feb. 13, 1998; 97Da39865, Sept. 11, 1998; 97Da1989, Jun. 198, 198, the original copy of the decision to commence auction on September 19, 198, which was lawfully recorded on the bid list of the owners other than the re-appellant's address (name 1 omitted; 00 apartment, 130 square meters).

B. According to Articles 728, 638(1) and 640(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, since the decision to grant a successful bid is stipulated to be announced on the bulletin board of the court, it is sufficient to follow such procedures and the decision is not necessary to be served on the interested parties, and the auction court did not deliver the decision to grant a successful bid at all to the interested parties, the allegation that the decision was unlawful is groundless

2. As to the allegation of illegality of rejection of the complaint on the ground of non-deposit

The argument that the auction court dismissed the petition of appeal filed by a person other than the reappeal on the ground that the deposit under Article 642 (4) of the Civil Procedure Act was not made, is a ground for other interested persons, and thus, it cannot be asserted.

3. As to the assertion of illegality in a lump sum auction

Article 615-2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the court may hold a blanket auction when it recognizes the same person to have a blanket auction in consideration of the location, form, use relationship, etc. of several real estate. According to the records, since the object of auction of this case is three lots of land and its ground neighborhood living facilities, which are mutual-use relationship between each other, if the owner differs by dividing and auction, it will not only be restricted in mutual-use relationship between the site and buildings, but also reduce the economic value of real estate, and therefore the auction court is justified in taking measures of blanket auction under the above provisions.

4. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles of the Composition Act

Since compulsory execution prohibited by Article 40 of the Composition Act does not include voluntary auction, the decision of commencement of composition does not affect the execution of the right to collateral security: Provided, That if the mortgagee renounces the right to collateral security under Article 44 of the Composition Act and exercises his/her right as a composition creditor, the right to collateral security can no longer be exercised. However, considering Article 44 of the Composition Act, and Articles 84 and 6(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, the holder of the right to separate settlement in composition procedure refers to a person who has mortgage, etc. on the composition debtor's property, and a person who has mortgage, etc. on the property held by a third party as a security on the composition debtor's property who is a composition debtor is not a holder of the right to separate settlement, in composition procedure for a principal debtor, he/she can exercise his/her right as a composition creditor as a matter of course on

Since the right to collateral security, which is the basis of the voluntary auction of this case, is not established on the property owned by Pungung Co., Ltd. which is the principal debtor, but established on the property owned by a third party other than the reappeal, even if the Korea Assets Management Corporation, which is the mortgagee, exercised the right to collateral security as a composition creditor with respect to the total amount of the secured debt in the composition procedure for Pungung Co., Ltd.

5. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)