According to Article 619(1) of the Civil Procedure Act which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 33(2) of the Auction Act, since the date of auction shall be determined 14 days after the date of the public notice, the party members' decision that the date of auction, including the 14th day after the date of the public notice, shall not be erroneous in holding the auction after setting the date of auction (see Supreme Court Order 66Ma503, Sep. 20, 196; Supreme Court Order 67Ma1207, Jan. 30, 1968; Supreme Court Order 68Ma739, Jul. 29, 1968; Supreme Court Order 68Ma739, Nov. 23, 1972). Thus, in this case where the public notice of the date of auction was made as of November 23, 1972, it cannot be deemed unlawful and there is no reason to oppose this.

With respect to the second ground for the same reason:

In addition to the provisions of Article 12 of the Mining Industry Act, the provisions of the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes concerning real estate shall apply mutatis mutandis to the mining right auction procedure, so the provisions of the Auction Act and the Civil Procedure Act which are applicable mutatis mutandis under this Act shall not apply mutatis mutandis, or in particular, the provisions concerning land among real estate shall not apply mutatis mutandis. Thus, under the provisions of Article 602 (1) 2 through 5 of the Civil Procedure Act which are applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 24 (4) of the Auction Act, the auction court cannot be deemed to have limited to the public office in charge of public records, and under the provisions of Article 602 (1) 2 through 5 (2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, the documents proving one-year tax and other public charges for mining rights shall not be deemed to have been limited to the public office in charge of public records, and in this case, the auction court may apply to the auction court for the investigation of the public amount, and therefore, the court of auction is justified and shall not be deemed to have erred by the court below.

With respect to the third ground for the same reason:

In order to promote the rational and innovative opening of private mines, the Korea Mining Promotion Corporation for the successful bidder of this case shall not only conduct any dactical guidance, investigation, research and evaluation of the development of private mines, but also conduct the management of the mine for its business purposes.

Therefore, it can not be employed as an independent opinion that the same construction cannot be a successful bidder. All the arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)