The provisional disposition right holder of the auction real estate does not correspond to the interested party who is entitled to file an immediate appeal against the decision of permission for sale, and an immediate appeal filed by the interested party, the buyer, and the bidder, is unlawful (see Supreme Court Order 68Ma137, Mar. 12, 1968; Supreme Court Order 94Ma1534, Sept. 30, 1994, etc.).

According to the records, the re-appellant is deemed to have filed an immediate appeal against the decision of permission for sale of this case as the qualification of the provisional disposition holder for the auction real estate of this case. In such a case, the court below should dismiss the appeal of this case. Nevertheless, the court below's decision dismissing the appeal of this case without examining whether the re-appellant is a legitimate appellant is a legitimate appellant is illegal.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)