(b) Whether service is effective, where the notification of auction date was delivered by registered mail to the address on the previous registry because the mortgagee neglected to register the change of address;

(c) Where an inheritor neglects the registration of inheritance and the notification of the auction date has already been served by registered mail to the address of the rightful person on the registry that died, whether the service is effective;

B. The delivery by mail under Article 617(3) of the Civil Procedure Act is limited to the time the delivery by mail under Article 173 of the same Act takes effect, and it is unique to the real estate auction procedure that differs from the requirements or effects. Thus, even if the delivery by a usual delivery method was made from the beginning without any attempt to deliver it by registered mail, the delivery takes effect at the time of delivery, and even if the right holder of real estate recorded in the registry, such as the mortgagee, neglects to register the change of address on the registry and fails to receive a notice of the auction date delivered by registered mail to the former address on the registry, the service becomes effective at the time of delivery and the disadvantage that is deprived of the right to participate in the auction

C. Where a person holding a right to the real estate stated in the register dies and the inheritor succeeds to the status of an interested party due to neglect of registration of inheritance on the registry, and the notification of the auction date was delivered by registered mail to the address of a right-holder on the registry that already died, even if the inheritor did not receive notification of the auction date due to his failure to live in the address delivered by him, the service takes effect as a service to the inheritor at the time of dispatch, and the auction procedure cannot be deemed unlawful, even if the inheritor was deprived of his

According to the records, the service of the decision to commence an auction against the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, and the non-party 6, among the owners of the case, by public notice, is lawful pursuant to the latter part of Article 179 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is clear that the service of the decision to commence an auction against the non-party 7, the debtor and the owner of the case, is legitimate. Thus, the order of the court below that held to the same purport is just, and the reasons for the appeal as mentioned above are the defects of service to the other interested parties, and it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for

2. On the validity of the notification of the bidding date

Article 617(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the court shall notify the interested parties of the date of auction, and Article 617(3) of the same Act provides that the notification of the date of auction to interested parties may be sent by registered mail to the address of interested parties indicated in the execution record, which guarantees interested parties' right to participate in the auction procedure by mandatory notification of the date of auction to interested parties. At the same time, in order to prevent delay in the procedure of notification of the date of auction to interested parties from delaying the progress of auction procedure, the notification of the date of auction to interested parties shall become effective when sent by registered mail to the address indicated in the execution record.

Therefore, the delivery by mail under Article 617(3) of the same Act is only the same as the effective date of the delivery by mail under Article 173 of the same Act, and the real estate auction procedure that differs from the requirements or effects. Thus, even if the delivery by means of ordinary delivery was made by registered mail from the beginning without any attempt to deliver it by registered mail, the service becomes effective at the time of delivery, and even if the right holder of the real estate stated in the register, such as the mortgagee, neglects to register the change of address on the registry and fails to receive the notice of the auction date delivered by registered mail to the former address on the registry, the service becomes effective at the time of delivery, and the disadvantage that the right to participate in the auction procedure is deprived of the right

In light of the above legal principles, where the heir who succeeded to the status of the interested party due to the death of the right holder of the real estate recorded in the registry, neglected to make a registration of inheritance on the registry, and thus the notification of the auction date was delivered by registered mail to the address of the right holder on the registry that died, even if the heir did not receive the notification of the auction date due to his failure to live in the address delivered by him, the service becomes effective as the service to the heir at the time of dispatch, and even if the heir was deprived of the right to participate in the auction

Thus, the decision of the court below which judged to the same purport shall be justified, and there is no reason to discuss the bidding date notice delivered by registered mail to the address of the deceased non-party 1, since it takes effect as service to the above deceased's litigants at the time of delivery.

3. Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)