[부동산경락허가결정에대한재항고][집18(3)민,192]
It is limited to the case of the proviso of Article 635(2) of the Civil Procedure Act that can deny ex officio a successful bid on the grounds that the date of auction is not notified to interested parties.
It is limited to the case of the proviso of Paragraph 2 of Article 635 of the Civil Procedure Act that can deny ex officio a successful bid on the grounds that the date of auction is not notified to interested parties.
Article 30 of the Auction Act, Article 635 of the Civil Procedure Act
Re-appellant
Jeonju District Court Decision 70Ra18 delivered on June 20, 1970
The original decision shall be reversed and the first instance decision shall be revoked.
The case shall be remanded to the Jeonju District Court for Gunsan.
According to the reasoning of the original decision:
The court below, on the ground that it may be recognized that the court did not notify the interested parties of the date of auction in this case, stated that the ruling of the rejection of the auction in this case was justifiable and maintained the ruling of the court of auction. Therefore, according to Article 30(2) of the Auction Act, the date of auction shall be notified to the interested parties, and pursuant to Article 633(1) of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis by Article 33 of the same Act, the date of auction shall be notified to the interested parties, and it shall not be deemed that it is impossible to continue the execution of the auction procedure without notification to the interested parties. However, according to Article 635(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the auction shall not be permitted ex officio when there are grounds provided for in Article 633 of the same Act.
However, in the case of subparagraph 1, the auction is limited to the case where the real estate at issue is not transferable or where the auction procedure is suspended, and it is limited to the case where the auction is not permitted ex officio, so even if there exists a procedural violation against the interested parties who did not notify the auction date to the interested parties, the decision not to permit the auction may not be made ex officio for this reason, unless there is an objection from the interested parties. Nevertheless, in this case where there is no objection from the interested parties, the court did not permit the auction of this case ex officio on the ground that the auction court did not notify the interested parties of the auction date, and the court below rejected the appeal of this case on the ground that the decision not to permit the auction of this case was justified and the appeal of this case was dismissed. The reappeal's reappeal's appeal of this case is without merit.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the bench, and the auction court decides to reverse the original decision and revoke the decision not to grant the adjudication of this case.
Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court