According to the records, it is clear that the re-appellant filed a complaint against the rejection ruling of quasi-appeal (the appellate court of the Gwangju District Court 68TTTTT490 case) filed by the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court (the appellate court of the Gwangju District Court 68TTT490 case) and the collegiate panel of the same court should have sent the record by deeming it as re-appeal to be the principal source. Nevertheless, the collegiate panel of the same court sent the record to the court below and the court below made a rejection ruling on the above re-appeal to the court below, and the decision of the court below was due to the absence of authority. Accordingly, the order of the court below shall be revoked, and the case shall be treated as a reappeal against the decision of the Gwangju District Court 74 GT1 (the original

Of the grounds for re-appeal, the above Gwangju District Court Order 69Ra55 (the subject decision of this case) was confirmed and the bid price was paid in full and the auction procedure was completed, and the decision of the auction was cancelled on the grounds of defects in the auction procedure, and it is obvious that the re-appeal was made by the court's decision as to the above 69Ra55 (the grounds for re-appeal) as the grounds for re-appeal against the above 69Ra555 (the above 69Ra555). Accordingly, the grounds for re-appeal are without merit and there is no other legitimate grounds for re-adjudication.

Therefore, the above 74 private decision shall be justified, and the reappeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-hee (Presiding Justice)