According to the records, on October 31, 1991, the re-appellant had registered the establishment of chonsegwon of 598,059,000 won at his domicile in Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) with respect to the building among the auction real estate of this case, and again registered the establishment of chonsegwon of 398,706,000 won at his domicile in Gangnam-gu ( Address 2 omitted) on March 2, 1992 (No. 27,30) and the auction court delivered the notification of auction date to each of the re-appellant from the auction date of August 25, 192 to the auction date of February 3, 1993 (No. 1 omitted) and sent the notification of auction date to the above auction date to the director's address of 398,706,000 won (No. 1 omitted) and then sent the notification of registered mail to the above auction date to 192 (No. 29,000).

However, according to Articles 728 and 612(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, notification of the date of auction to interested parties in the auction of real estate may be sent by registered mail to the address of interested parties indicated in the execution record. Since the address of interested parties mentioned above should be the most recent address among the addresses known by the execution record, the auction court's notice of auction date should be served to the previous address prior to the director of the re-appellant as above. Meanwhile, in light of the contents of reduction of the minimum auction price of the building of this case and the land jointly secured by the co-mortgage, each of the auction prices of this case, and each of the reduction of the auction prices, and the maximum auction prices of senior mortgagees over the right to lease on a deposit basis established later than the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case, it cannot be concluded that the reduction of the minimum auction price did not affect the satisfaction of the total amount of the deposit on a deposit basis.

Ultimately, each service against the Re-Appellant cannot be deemed a lawful service, and it cannot be a legitimate one that reduces the minimum auction price in succession, and accordingly, the decision of the court of auction which permitted the successful bid cannot be said to be illegal even though the auction on February 3, 1993, which took place over the auction date, cannot be deemed a lawful one.

Nevertheless, the order of the court below, which held that the delivery by registered mail was lawful and there is no illegality in the decision of permission for the auction of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the address of interested parties indicated in the execution record, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Decision 200Hun-Ga1111 Decided 196

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)