[부동산경락허가결정][공1990.8.1.(877),1439]
When the service to the interested parties of the notice of auction date is impossible in the course of the voluntary auction due to the absence of long-term closure, the propriety of such service, if it is made by mail (affirmative)
In the voluntary auction procedure, it is reasonable to serve a notice of auction date on the interested parties by means of mail as the court fails to serve the notice of auction due to the absence of long-term closure after conducting the ordinary service.
Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 30 of the Auction Act
Kim Go-ro
Incheon District Court Order 89Ra155 Dated February 17, 1990
The reappeal is dismissed.
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
The record reveals that the notice of auction date of June 27, 1989, August 29 of the same year, and September 26 of the same year is impossible to be served due to the absence of closure or the absence of long-term closure, and the chief clerk of the court below served the notice of auction date of September 26 of the same year by mail and proceeded with the auction procedure of this case. Thus, it is proper that the court below held that the auction court of this case judged that the delivery of the notice of auction date of this case to the re-appellant by mail is legitimate when it is impossible to serve the notice of auction date of this case on September 26, 1989 as a long-term absence after the notice of auction date was served on the re-appellant. The judgment of the court below cannot be viewed as a violation of the precedent of the party member, and the remaining argument of the lawsuit is not a legitimate ground for re-appeal. Therefore, it is without merit.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)