[부동산경락허가결정에대한재항고][집16(3)민,088]
(a) The comprehensive auction and over-auction of the sites and buildings attached thereto;
B. Whether Article 648 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable in a case where the court revokes ex officio the decision of approval of a successful bid due to a defect in the auction procedure
The provisions of Article 648 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201 of Jan. 13, 90) shall not apply to cases where a new auction is conducted by cancelling ex officio the decision of permission of auction because there is a defect in the auction procedure.
Article 365 of the Civil Act; Article 636 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 648 of the Civil Procedure Act
67Ma1162 delivered on December 12, 1967
Re-appellant
Seoul Central District Court Order 67Ra685 dated June 18, 1968
The reappeal is dismissed.
The second ground of reappeal of the re-appellant is examined.
In light of the purport of Article 365 of the Civil Code, the provision of excessive auction under Article 636 of the Civil Procedure Act is not applicable in the case of an auction of a building site and its ground buildings together with a building site and its ground, since it is a publicly known fact that the auction is helpful for enhancing its value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 67Ma162, Dec. 12, 67).
The second ground for reappeal is examined.
In the case where the auction decision of re-auction is less than the former auction decision, if the successful bidder bears the shortage and procedural costs than the latter auction decision, it is evident that the auction decision is made at the time of re-auction due to the lack of full performance of the obligation on the payment date, considering the provisions of Article 648 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this case does not constitute a case where the court revokes ex officio the auction decision and conducts a new auction by cancelling the auction decision. Thus, in this case, the auction bond was returned to tin mining Co., Ltd. among the successful bidder of the cancelled auction decision, and there is no error like the argument.
In addition, upon examining the grounds for reappeal as stated in the reappeal, a dispute in which the main debtor did not have any damage to the creditor and the main debtor had the ability to compensate shall not be a legitimate ground for reappealing this case to prevent the successful bid, and even if the auction price has been lowered above the market price, it is impossible to do so, and in an auction conducted in accordance with the legal procedure, there is no room for application of the principle of public order and good customs. Thus, there is no question or acceptance of any question.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Round Kim Gi-soon