Where a right is reported only after the public notice of the bidding date and the bidding date and the bidding notification procedure for 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 did not notify the bidding date and the bid date, and thus, it cannot be deemed an objection or appeal for the successful tender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 95Ma320, Apr. 22, 1995; 93Ma178, Mar. 4, 1993).

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the re-appellant reported his right as an interested party after the date of bidding on October 22, 1997 and the notice of the date of bid on October 14:00 of the same month and the date of bid on October 29 of the same month 297 and the notice of the date to other interested parties was sent, and determined that the re-appellant did not notify the above bidding date, etc. as an interested party cannot be a ground for appeal against the successful bid of this case, and that there is no illegality in the appraisal of the real estate subject to the bid of this case or the decision of the minimum auction price cannot be found. The court below's measures are just in accordance with the records, and there is no error of law as to the notification of the bid date and the decision of the minimum bid price, or mistake of facts

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)