Article 615 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the court shall have an appraiser appraise a real estate and determine the minimum auction price in consideration of the appraised value," and there is no special restriction on the qualifications for an appraiser to evaluate the auction real estate. Thus, unless the special provisions such as Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans by Financial Institutions are applied, the court of auction may order any person, if deemed to have the capability to appraise the auction real estate, to whom it can be ordered. The provision of Article 21 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. of Lands, etc. Act cannot be interpreted to the effect that the authority of the court of auction is restricted. Thus, the court of auction cannot be said to be unlawful because it orders

[Dissenting Opinion]

In light of the purpose of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.”) and the provisions of Articles 20(1)4, 21(1) and 2(3) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, the court’s auction of land or a building under the Civil Procedure Act constitutes an auction of land, etc. by the State under Article 21(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and the qualification to evaluate land, etc. is limited to an appraisal business operator. Thus, in making an appraisal under Article 615 of the Civil Procedure Act after the enforcement of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, it is unlawful to order an appraisal business operator under the Public Notice of Values

Article 615 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the court shall have an appraiser appraise the real estate and determine the minimum auction price in consideration of the appraised value," and there is no special restriction on the qualifications for an appraiser to evaluate the auction real estate. Thus, unless special provisions such as Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans by Financial Institutions are applied, the court may order an auction court to any person who is deemed capable of assessing the auction real estate, and the provisions of Article 21 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act cannot be interpreted to the effect that the authority of the auction court is limited. Therefore, the court below's order the auction court to assess the real estate of this case and determine the minimum auction price in consideration of the appraised value cannot be deemed to be unlawful because it goes against the above Act. The court below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no error

(2) Judgment on the second ground for reappeal

The reason why the investigation of the possessor of the auction real estate of this case was omitted is that the re-appellant, who is not the successful bidder, can not be the ground for appeal against the decision of permission of auction of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 80Ma148, Apr. 25, 1980). Therefore, the court below's rejection of the ground for appeal against this point is without merit.

(3) All reappeals' reappeals' reappeals' reappeals' reappeals are dismissed. This decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed except for the following opinions as to the judgment on the first ground for reappeals' reappeals' ground for reappeals'.

(4) Opinion of Justice Kim Sang-won, Justice Song Man-chul, Justice Kim Jong-ju, and Justice Kim Jong-soo.

Article 20(1)4 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Land, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989; hereinafter the "Public Notice of Land Price") provides that the reasonable price of land shall be determined and publicly announced. The purpose of this Act is to promote an adequate price formation by prescribing the matters on appraisal of land, buildings, etc., to contribute to the efficient utilization of land and the development of the national economy. Furthermore, according to Article 20(1)4 of the Public Notice of Land Price Act, an appraisal business operator has been engaged in the appraisal of land, etc. in court proceedings or auction proceedings. Article 21(1) of the Public Notice of Land Price Act provides that "where the State, a local government, a government-invested institution established under the Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions, or a public organization prescribed by the Presidential Decree intends to request an appraisal of land, etc. for sale.

Although considering Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans by Financial Institutions as a special restriction provision on appraisers under Article 615 of the Civil Procedure Act, the majority opinion held that the auction court cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the provisions of Article 21(1) of the Land Price Disclosure Act cannot be interpreted as limiting the power of the auction court without any reasonable ground, since it violates the purport of the provision of the Land Price Disclosure Act and thus it is difficult to accept as above.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice) of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Justice)