[2] The purport of Article 617(2) of the Civil Procedure Act stipulating that the date of a tender and the date of a successful tender shall be notified to the interested parties, and whether a separate date shall be notified to the person who newly became an interested party after the comprehensive designation in the bidding procedure in accordance with the 'the method of multiple biddings and the method of collective tender

[3] In a case where a report on the right of an interested party was made only after the preceding date which was impossible to be bid in the bidding procedure by "the method of multiple biddings and the method of designating the successful bid date", whether it is unlawful to omit the notification of the date to the interested party on the next date (negative)

[4] In a case where an interested party who did not receive the notification of the date in the tendering procedure participates in the tendering procedure with his own knowledge of the date for bidding, whether the omission of the notification of the date to the interested party constitutes "when it is impossible to continue the enforcement, which is the ground for the adjudication under Article 633 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] The purport that the interested parties in the bidding procedure shall be notified of the bidding date and the bid date. The interested parties in the bidding procedure may take necessary measures to prevent the excessive sale of the target real estate on the bidding date and take measures to prevent the sale of the target real estate by attending the bidding date. The interested parties in the bidding procedure shall have a direct interest in the sale of the target real estate on their own except the debtor, and as those who have the interest in the right to attend the bidding date and to state opinions, it is not sufficient to give an opportunity to participate in the bidding procedure by individually notifying the bidding date and the bid date, taking into account that it is not sufficient to notify only the bidding date and the public announcement of the bid date, the interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the bidding procedure only when the bidding date and the bid date after the second are impossible at the bidding date, and it shall not be substituted by the notification of the interested parties at the time of collective designation.

[3] Where a report on a right is filed only after the procedures for the public notice of the bidding date and the notification of the bidding date and the bid date to other interested parties are completed, even if the report was made before the bidding date, it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the interested parties failed to notify the bidding date and the bid date. Thus, where the bidding procedure is impossible on the preceding date and the next date is conducted on the next date, the notification procedure has already been completed without a further notice to the existing interested parties. Thus, even if a new report on a right was made after the bidding date, it cannot be deemed unlawful to omit the notification of the date for the interested parties who reported the above right on the next date after the bidding date, even if the new report on the right was impossible after the bidding date.

[4] In light of the purport of Article 617(2) of the Civil Procedure Act that provides that the interested parties shall be notified of the date of bidding and the date of successful bid, if an interested party could take measures necessary to protect his/her rights by attending the bidding on that date and participating in the bidding on that date, even if the interested party did not receive the notification of the date, the omission of the notification of the date of bidding and the date of successful bid to the interested party shall not be deemed to constitute "when it is impossible to continue execution, which is the ground for the objection to the successful bid under Article 63

1. Article 633 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the date of a successful bid cannot continue execution" as one of the grounds for objection against the successful bid. Article 617(2) of the same Act provides that the court shall notify the interested parties of the date of the auction and the date of the successful bid. Thus, the compulsory execution cannot be lawfully conducted without such notice unless there are special reasons, and the omission of such date becomes a ground for objection against the successful bid. This is the same as in the case of a tender to be applied mutatis mutandis under Article 663(2) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Order 95Ma1053, Dec. 5, 1995). The purport of the provision that the interested parties of the bid procedure shall be notified of the date of a bid and the date of the successful bid is that the interested parties who acquired the bid procedure may take necessary measures to prevent excessive sale of the target real estate after the date of the bid on a new date and that the interested parties shall not be given an opportunity to participate in the bid on an individual basis of 90-1.

However, where a right declaration is made only after the tender date is completed in the public notice of the tender date and the notice of the tender and the bid date to other interested parties, even if the report was made before the tender date, it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the interested parties were not notified of the tender and the bid date (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 93Ma178, Mar. 4, 1993; 98Ma206, Mar. 12, 1998). Thus, in the tender procedure by the method of collective designation as above, if the tender is impossible on the preceding date and the next date is conducted on the next date, the notification procedure has already been completed without a further notice to the existing interested parties. Thus, even if a new right declaration was made after the preceding date, it cannot be deemed unlawful unless the interested parties were informed of the tender date immediately after the preceding date and immediately after the preceding date, and the interested parties cannot be deemed to have been present at the third 5th of the tender date and notified of the bid date.

2. According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below rejected the Re-Appellant's assertion that the bid was unlawful since the Re-Appellant's bid was conducted without notifying the re-Appellant's bidding date to the interested parties of the 19th bidding. The court of first instance, which conducted the bidding procedure of this case on April 10, 199. ① The bidding date of this case was 1.0, May 3, 1999 (the first bid date), ② the bid date of this case was 9.0, May 31, 199; ② the bid date was 1.00, June 7, 1999 (the second bid) and the second bid date was 9.0,000,000 on June 5, 199; ③ The second bid date was 9.00,000 on July 12, 199 (the second bid date) and the second bid date of this case was 9.0,000,000 won.

On the other hand, even if the court of first instance set forth four consecutive bidding dates and completed the notification to interested parties at the time of the second bidding, the court below's explanation of the above determination is erroneous. However, it is reasonable to view that the above re-appellant could have been able to take measures necessary for protecting rights by participating in the bidding by failing to notify the third bidding date to the re-appellant 2 and the re-appellant 3, who reported rights between the first bidding date and the second bidding date and the second bidding date. However, the court below's decision that rejected the above re-appellant's assertion is justifiable in its conclusion. Further, the re-appellant 1 is clear that the right was reported only before the third bidding date after the second bidding date is impossible, and in this case, the court of first instance cannot be deemed unlawful since the court of first instance omitted the third bidding date to the above re-appellant. Ultimately, the court below's decision on this point is justifiable. It did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the ground of reappeal.

3. Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)