[2] In a case where an application for a subsequent completion of the decision to grant a successful bid after full payment of the successful bid price is permitted, whether the decision to grant a successful bid becomes final and conclusive (negative), and whether there is a legitimate payment of the successful bid price (negative)

[2] In a case where an interested party files an appeal by the subsequent completion of the decision of permission for auction, if the court of appeal grants the subsequent completion of the decision, the decision of permission for auction does not become final and conclusive, and thus, even if the auction court had the successful bidder pay the successful bid price by setting the deadline for payment of the successful bid price with the knowledge that the decision of permission for auction has already become final and conclusive prior to that, it cannot be deemed a legitimate payment of the successful bid price. Therefore, in a case where another co-owner's appeal against the decision of permission for auction in the auction procedure of shares jointly owned property is allowed, and where there is a defect in failing to notify other co-owners of the bid date and the date of the successful bid, the decision of permission for auction should be revoked by accepting

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below found that the auction court failed to notify the appellant, who is the co-owners of the auction real estate of the bid date and the bid date, while conducting the auction procedure of this case, but the appellant does not constitute an interested party provided in Article 641 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is entitled to appeal against the decision of permission for the bid of this case, but does not constitute an interested party provided in Article 607 of the same Act, so there is no illegality in not notifying the bidding date and the bid date. Meanwhile, even if there was a procedural error in which other co-owners did not give other co-owners the opportunity of preferential bid because other co-owners did not notify the other co-owners of the bid date and the bid date, the decision of permission for the bid of this case cannot be revoked upon the application of subsequent completion by co-owners (see Supreme Court Order 69Ma922, Oct. 27, 1969). Thus, the appellant's appeal is dismissed.

However, the auction court should notify other co-owners of the auction date and the auction date (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 63Ma83, Mar. 31, 1964; Order 65Ma520, Jul. 2, 1965; Order 95Ma35, Apr. 25, 1995; etc.). If other co-owners of the auction real estate of this case fail to receive notice of the auction date, an appeal may be filed on the ground of procedural defects. Meanwhile, if an appeal is filed by the interested parties upon the completion of the auction period, the court below accepted the auction period's decision and ordered the successful bidder to pay the auction price by the expiration of the auction period with the knowledge that the decision of approval of the auction became final and conclusive, and thus, it cannot be deemed legitimate payment of the auction price by the auction court, which is the other co-owners of the auction real estate of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 196Ma16, Jul. 16, 19687).

Supreme Court Order 69Ma922 dated October 27, 1969 cited by the court below was different from the case and thus it cannot be invoked in this case.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)