(1) According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below rejected the appeal of this case by the re-appellant on the ground that the market price of the real estate of this case in this case is high price as alleged by the re-appellant, and that there is no evidence to regard it as high price, as well as that there is no illegality in the decision of the minimum auction price for the real estate of this case or in the reduction procedure, and that the auction price of the real estate of this case is low in comparison with the market price of the real estate of this case, and this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, even if examining the records of this case in detail, there is no other reason to revoke the order of

(2) However, according to the records of this case, in particular, the appraisal report on the real estate of this case (No. 83 below the records), etc., the real estate subject to the auction of this case is owned by the re-appellant with the total area of 280.9m2 of 280.9m2 in Jung-gu, Seoul and 68.7m2 in Jung-gu ( Address 1 omitted) and the gross area of 5m2 in the 5m2 in the 5m3m2 in the 5m2 in the building adjacent to the ground iron bars, each of 51.57m2, 3, 58.18m2, 5m2, and 61.49mm2 in each of the above real estate owned by the re-appellant. Since each of the above real estate was established in the name of Dongba Mutual Savings and Finance Company, the creditor of this case's application for auction of this case on April 27, 1989, the total area of the above buildings and the above 5m2525m2.

As such, if the building subject to auction of this case loses independence as a building due to combination with another building adjacent to the building, only the building subject to auction of this case may not be independently transferred or subject to auction of this case. In such a case, the creditor's right to collateral security against the building subject to auction of this case shall continue to exist on the re-appellant's co-ownership share corresponding to the ratio of the building subject to auction of this case among new buildings created jointly by the above co-ownership of the building. Thus, the creditor who is the right to collateral security has to file a request for auction of the re-appellant's co-ownership instead

Therefore, the above reasons arising from the auction of this case are that the auction court should not grant ex officio a successful bid on the building of this case because the real estate sold by auction under the proviso of Article 635 (2) and Article 633 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the auction for the execution of the mortgage of this case under Article 728 of the same Act, falls under the case where compulsory execution is not possible because it is impossible to grant a permit. Thus, the auction court should not grant a permit on the auction of this case on the land of this case and the building of this case on the land of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 70Ma639, Apr. 20, 197). However, the auction court's permission on the auction of this case on the real estate of this case is erroneous.

In addition, since each of the above provisions shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal court pursuant to Article 643 (3) of the same Act, the court below should ex officio examine these points, even if the re-appellant did not assert the above points as a ground for appeal, and then should have considered the legitimacy of the decision of the court of auction.

(3) The second ground for reappeal pointing this out is with merit, and the order of the court below is reversed without examining the remaining grounds for reappeal and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)