The summary of the theory of the lawsuit was that part of the real estate which was the object of the right to collateral security was lost due to the chemical system after the registration of the right to collateral security was made. Thus, although the auction court did not take the procedure of registration of alteration as to the object of auction and did not make the procedure of registration of alteration as to the object of the right to collateral security at the time of the appraisal, it was erroneous that the auction court made the same decision as granting the auction according to the registration. However, even if a part of the building which was the object of the right to collateral security was lost after the registration of establishment of collateral security, as long as it is recognized as identical to the building which was the object of the right to collateral security at the time of the previous building after the registration of establishment of collateral security, the appraisal of the minimum auction price for the remaining part of the building was conducted after the appraisal of the real estate after the registration of establishment of collateral security, and it is obvious that the decision of approval of the remaining part was not erroneous by the indication of the building at the actual registration of the right to collateral security. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong and Ma-dong Ma-dong