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 begins after the execution officer's declaration of the completion of the bid, and the execution officer refused to make a preferential purchase declaration on the ground that the above bidding price by the re-appellant 4 was not in accordance with legitimate procedures. Unlike auction, in the case of auction, the co-owner should report a preferential purchase 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 which permitted the highest bidder to make a successful bid without accepting the Re-Appellant 4's preferential purchase 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 by the date of auction. In the case of paragraph (2), in the case of paragraph (1), the court shall grant a preferential bid to the co-owners regardless of the highest bid price. The term "before the auction date" means before the execution officer completes the auction date. Co-owners may make a preferential bid declaration until the execution officer issues the highest bidder's name and price and declares the completion of auction. The above provisions of the Civil Procedure Act providing a preferential bid right of co-owners shall also apply mutatis mutandis to bidding pursuant to Article 663(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

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)