1. As to the reappeal 1, 2, and 3

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that there is no error in the appraisal method of the Korea Appraisal Board for the real estate in this case or in the determination of the minimum bid price by the auction court based thereon, and there is no error of law as to the determination of the minimum bid price as alleged by the above-appellant.

2. As to the reappeal 4's reappeal

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the re-appellant 4, one of the co-owners of the real estate of this case, was the first bidder's bidding date as of June 3, 199, the opening of the bid after the termination of the bid on the date of the bid and the opening of the bid commenced after the commencement of the bid, and the execution officer rejected the second bidder's preferential bid declaration as of June 3, 199, on the ground that the above bidding price by the re-appellant 4 was not in accordance with lawful procedures. Unlike auction, in the case of auction, the co-owner's preferential bid declaration as of this case should be reported until the closing of the bid at the latest, and it rejected the Re-Appellant 4's claim that the decision of the auction court that allowed the highest bidder to make the successful bid was unlawful, without accepting the second bidder's preferential bid declaration as of June 3, 199.

Article 650(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that co-owners shall grant a preferential bid to the co-owners at the same price as the highest bid price for the debtor's share at the same time as the highest bid price by the date of auction. In the case of paragraph (2), the court shall grant a preferential bid to the co-owners in the case of paragraph (1). The "not later than the date of auction" refers to the time before the execution officer completes the auction date, and co-owners may make a preferential bid declaration until the execution officer issues the name and price of the highest bidder and declares the completion of the auction. The above provisions of the Civil Procedure Act providing a preferential bid right of the co-owners shall also apply mutatis mutandis to the bid pursuant to

The above preferential right of co-owners is a system that provides co-owners with an opportunity to receive a successful bid or a successful bid at the price after the highest bidder has been determined, and auction and bidding are merely a method of determining the highest price. In the case of bidding, the time of preferential bid declaration by the co-owners should not be limited to the time of bidding termination unless the execution officer declares the completion of bidding.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the return of preferential purchase by the re-appellant 4 was delayed at the time when the bid procedure is not completed, and it is unlawful, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the co-owner's preferential purchase declaration. Thus, the re-appellant 4's ground of reappeal 100

3. Therefore, the reappeal 1, 2, and 3's reappeals are all dismissed as it is without merit. The part concerning the Re-Appellant 4 among the judgment below's reappeals is reversed and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)