[부동산경락허가결정에대한재항고][공1980.1.1.(623),12338]
Effect of failure to give peremptory notice to the public office in charge of the public sector
Even though the court did not demand the public office in charge of the auction to notify the existence and limit of the claim within a certain period of time, there is no influence on the decision of permission of auction.
Article 614 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Order 63Ma190 Decided April 6, 1964
Re-appellant
Seoul Central District Court Order 79Ra134 Dated August 14, 1979
The reappeal is dismissed.
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
According to the records 48 and 67, the court of auction can find that the auction court ordered the investigation of the rent of the land and building which is the object of auction as well as the investigation of the amount and the amount of the order received and reported, and that the auction court announced the auction date based on the investigation report, so it cannot be said that there was any error like the theory of lawsuit in the public notice of auction date, and that there was no list of real estate in the copy of the peremptory notice to the public office in charge of the public office and the office in charge of the public office in the record, and even if the auction court did not notify the public office and the office in charge of the public office within a certain period of time that the list of real estate was not attached to the auction date, it does not affect the decision of auction permission, which is not a ground for appeal against the permission decision (refer to the opinion on April 6, 1964).
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)