[부동산경락허가결정에대한재항고][집20(3)민,062]
The case holding that there is an error of law that is not well recognized as the "auction price" which is the standard for the determination of the deposit amount in the order of correction due to the absence of deposit under Article 5-2 of the Act on Special Measures for the overdue Loans of the Financial Convergence Agency.
In making an order of correction under this Article with no deposit under this Article, the amount of money to be deposited shall be determined on the basis of only the auction price for the relevant real estate, as long as the amount of money to be the standard for the determination of the deposit amount has been appraised on each real estate for the purpose of auction, and the individual appraisal price has been indicated, and as long as the auction procedure has failed to proceed and an appeal has been filed only for a part
Article 413 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 371 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 5-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans of Financial Institutions
Kim Jong-Jon
Seoul Civil History District Court Decision 72Ra628 delivered on June 26, 1972
The original decision (order of dismissal of appeal) shall be reversed, and it shall be remanded to the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.
As to the ground of re-appeal:
In consideration of the records of the auction and the order of correction, etc. in the original trial, the order of transfer between the creditor, the Korea Trust Bank and the debtor, the real estate acquired by the debtor, has been transferred to the creditor, with respect to the credit relationship between the creditor, and the non-party acquired by the debtor, the non-party acquired by the property and the non-party acquired by the real estate shall be 26 square meters and 11 square meters and 11 square meters (1) of the building site in the same site, and the non-appeal Kim Jong-Un shall be 64 square meters and 64 square meters of the building site in Seoul (24 square meters omitted) and the non-party acquired by the non-party acquired by the non-party, the non-party acquired by the non-party acquired by the real estate shall be 1 (2) of the above real estate and the non-party acquired by the non-party acquired by the auction (21) of the above real estate shall be deemed to have been sold to the re-party before the application for the auction, and it is clear that the non-party acquired by the above real estate at least 21 (21) price of the auction.
If so, the court below's order of correction has the same defects as the original decision in the original complaint, but it is necessary to indicate the amount to be deposited only on the basis of the auction price for the above (1) real estate owned by the appellant, but the court below did not file an appeal, and it is illegal that the court below stated the amount to be deposited on the basis of the standard for the sum of the auction price for the above (2) real estate, the owner of which has different ownership, and that the order of correction was issued on the basis that the order of correction is legitimate. Therefore, the court below's order of correction under the premise that the order
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.
The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)