According to the copy of the register and the letter of delegation attached to the original document, it is clear that the successful bidder 1 is the manager of the mutual savings and finance company, and the non-applicant 1 is also clear that the non-applicant 2 was appointed as the agent of the non-applicant 2 with respect to the bidding of this case. Thus, there is no defect in the representative of the above successful bidder in the auction auction, so the original decision is just and without merit.

In addition, according to the grounds for reappeal and the reappeal of this case, the purport that the statement in the petition of appeal should be invoked by asserting paragraphs 1 and 2 of the grounds for reappeal as they are. The grounds for reappeal should be stated in the reappeal of this case or in an independent document as the grounds for reappeal of this case, and it is not possible to invoke any other written contents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 69Ma954, Oct. 31, 1969).

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

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)