According to the records, the following facts are recognized:

A. The appraiser at the court of first instance appraised the value of the apartment as KRW 950 million in the auction procedure for the real estate commencement regarding the apartment as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “the apartment in this case”). As a result, the court of first instance determined the minimum sale price of the apartment in this case as above and conducted the auction procedure.

B. On October 9, 2008, the judicial assistant officers of the court of first instance set the date of sale more than 4 times by issuing an order for sale by means of fixed tendering, but no bidder exists until the third date of sale until the third date of sale, and thus, the judicial assistant officers of the court of first instance issued an order for sale on February 25, 2009 by setting a new date of sale, and at this time, the minimum sale price was KRW 486,400,000.

C. On March 11, 2009, which was the first sale date by the second sale order of the auction procedure of this case, Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty of the judgment of the Supreme Court) reported the highest bid price of KRW 5.328 million. However, on the same day, Nonparty 1 stated “0 million” as the actual number, and as a result, he could not pay the price of KRW 5.328 million to the court of first instance. At the time, the next highest bidder was Nonparty 2 and 3, who purchased the bid of KRW 608,899,000.

D. On March 18, 2009, the judicial assistant officer of the court of first instance decided not to allow the sale on the ground that the non-party 1 appears to have made a serious clerical error in the bid price. On March 30, 2009, the court of first instance approved the decision not to allow the sale.

2. Summary of and judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. Summary of the grounds for appeal

In addition, the appellant asserts that the decision of the first instance court should be revoked because it infringes on the right to receive dividends from the second mortgagee and the debtor's interest in repayment of claims, unless there are special circumstances that require the decision of rejection of sale, and if the decision of rejection of sale is made on the grounds of clerical error in the bid price, the legitimate bidder's right may be infringed

B. Determination

Article 123(1) of the Civil Execution Act provides that "the court shall not permit the sale, if the objection is deemed justifiable." In full view of all the circumstances, the decision on the refusal of the sale of this case is justifiable, taking into account the following: (a) the appraised value of the apartment of this case was 950 million won; (b) the appraised value of the apartment of this case was 950 million won from the auction procedure of this case to the third auction date; (c) there was no bidder from the third auction to the third auction date; (d) the minimum selling price of the apartment of this case was 486.4 million won at the time of Nonparty 1’s highest bidding; and (e) the highest bid price was 608,89,000 won at the time of Nonparty 1’s highest bidding; and (e) Nonparty 1 filed an application for the refusal of the sale on the grounds that there

3. Conclusion

Thus, the appellant's appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment of List]

Judges’ fee (Presiding Judge)