[부동산경락허가결정에대한재항고][집19(2)민,190]
If the auction court shows to the pertinent authority a written peremptory notice that if there is any unpaid tax or other public imposts with respect to land subject to auction, and there is any unpaid tax, the amount and the deadline for payment shall be notified within a given period, it shall include the purport that if there is no notice within the said period, it shall be deemed that there is no unpaid
The auction court sent a peremptory notice to the pertinent authority to urge the notification of the amount and time limit for payment where there is any unpaid or unpaid tax or other public imposts with respect to the land subject to auction, but the public notice of the auction date is deemed to have no land unpaid within the said period, and the auction procedure is conducted with such purport stated in the public notice of the auction date. Thus, the public notice of the above date is not unlawful.
Article 614 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 618 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 33 of the Auction Act
Master Industrial Company
Seoul Civil History District Court Decision 71Ra133 delivered on March 25, 1971
The reappeal is dismissed.
Re-appellant's re-appeal ground of the re-appellant
According to the records, the auction court of this case issued a peremptory notice to the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office and the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the auction on July 25, 1970 on the land of this case and urged the notification by August 10 of the next year if there is any unpaid or unpaid taxes or other public imposts with respect to this land. Therefore, if there is no notification within the above period, the purport is that the above peremptory notice should be treated as unpaid public charges if there is no unpaid public charges. Therefore, since the head of the above head of the tax office and the head of the tax office did not respond to the above peremptory notice, the above auction court shall be recognized as not having public charges on the land of this case, and the public notice of the auction date shall be deemed to have been made, and the auction court shall be able to be carrying out the auction procedure. Accordingly, the auction court shall notify the head of the tax office and the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the location of the land, but there is no answer to such public notice, and thus, it cannot be viewed as unlawful.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng