[부동산경락허가결정][공1992.5.1.(919),1268]
A. Whether the court is obligated to order the deposit for a reasonable period in a case where the petition of appeal is not accompanied by the documents attesting to the security deposit under Article 642(4) of the Civil Procedure Act (negative)
B. Whether a reappeal can be made on the ground that the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the aforementioned “A” and the same statutory provisions did not make a security deposit (negative)
A. Where a petition of appeal is not accompanied by a document attesting that cash equivalent to 1/10 of the successful bid price or securities recognized by the court have been deposited as security by guarantee under Article 642(4) of the Civil Procedure Act, there is no ground to deem that the court has a duty to order the deposit under the provisions of the same Act for a reasonable period in rejecting the petition of appeal.
B. Where the appeal is dismissed on the ground that the foregoing “A” and the same Article do not make a security deposit under the same Act, the appeal shall not be deemed a ground for reappeal as unrelated to the dismissal of the appeal.
(a)Paragraph 4 and 5 of Article 642 of the Civil Procedure Act;
A. Supreme Court Order 91Ma440 Dated September 27, 1991; Supreme Court Order 70Ma428 Dated July 27, 1970
Re-appellant
Suwon District Court Order 13723 Dated January 6, 1992
The reappeal is dismissed.
As to the ground of reappeal
According to the records, it is obvious that the appeal filed by the re-appellant is not accompanied by a document that proves that cash equivalent to 1/10 of the successful bid price or securities recognized by the court have been deposited as security under Article 642 (4) of the Civil Procedure Act. For this reason, it is reasonable that the court below rejected the appeal of this case pursuant to Article 642 (5) of the same Act. In such a case, it is not reasonable that the court below has a duty to order the deposit under the above Article of this Act for a reasonable period as stated in the lawsuit. The remaining arguments are unrelated to the dismissal of the appeal of this case, and therefore, they cannot be deemed legitimate grounds for reappeal (see Supreme Court Order 70Ma428, Jul. 27, 190).
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)