The summary of the grounds for quasi-examination of the applicant for quasi-examination (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant") is that it is unlawful to dismiss the reappeal on the ground that the party members did not serve the notification of receipt of the records of re-examination on the case subject to re-examination to a person who is not authorized to receive the records of re-examination but lawfully served the

According to the records, when the applicant is residing in Japan and filed an application for the purchase of the objects of auction at the auction date of this case, he had the mother non-party 1 in Korea obtain a certificate of seal impression for the successful bid delegation and appointed a request for auction using it. The applicant becomes the highest bidder and reported the applicant's resident registration address as well as the applicant's address as the applicant's resident registration address as the above non-party 1's resident registration address as the above non-party 1's domestic address (hereinafter "domestic address"). However, at the appeal court on the decision of successful bid permission, the applicant changed his address to the address of Hong-gu, Nowon-gu (hereinafter "foreign address 2 omitted) in Japan and sent the decision to the applicant's domestic address to the domestic address and returned it to the applicant for the reason that the applicant was traveling, and the applicant was sent to the same address twice as the applicant's domestic address, but the applicant was sent to the domestic address as a non-party 1's domestic address upon receipt of the second appeal and the second appeal.

Article 630 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if the highest bidder has no residence and office in the court location, he shall select a provisional address in such court location and report it to the court," and Articles 171 (2) and 174 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case where he has neglected to report," and the purport of legislation of the above provision is to promptly and conveniently notify or serve a notice of adjudication, it is not the seat of the auction court, but it is not permissible for the applicant to report the delivery procedure to change the service procedure to a foreign country beyond the country which requires more complicated and time. Thus, it is legitimate for a member of the case subject to review to serve a notice of trial record as a domestic address.

In addition, according to the above facts of recognition, the applicant has delegated Nonparty 1, his mother, to appoint a representative for filing a request for auction, and in reporting his address as the highest bidder, the applicant has a resident registration address and reported his domestic address, which is the address of Nonparty 1, to the above address, and thus, the above Nonparty 1 has granted the authority to receive the documents related to auction. Accordingly, the receipt of the notice of acceptance of the records of reappeal cannot be justified.

Therefore, in a case subject to review, the delivery of a written notice of receipt of records of trial by a party member is lawful, and the application for quasi-deliberation of this case on the premise that the above delivery is illegal is without merit.

Therefore, the petitioner's application for quasi-deliberation of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)