[부동산경락허가결정에대한재항고][공1980.10.15.(642),13106]
The case holding that the appeal period against the decision of permission of a successful bid is unlawful on the ground that the appeal period is not due to the grounds not attributable to the party.
The decision of granting a successful bid should be announced by the court of auction and posted on the bulletin board, and the service of the interested parties is not required by law, so if the owner of the real estate at auction becomes aware that the auction procedure was in progress after being served the original copy of the decision of commencing the auction, it shall be considered the progress of the auction and the decision of granting a successful bid, and if it is not known that the decision of granting a successful bid was declared because it did not take such measures despite the fact that the decision of granting a successful bid was not taken, it shall not be deemed that the appellant was due to any cause
Articles 160 and 414 of the Civil Procedure Act
Re-appellant
Seoul Central District Court Order 80Ma44 dated March 13, 1980
The reappeal is dismissed.
The grounds for re-appeal of the re-appellant are examined.
According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the decision of the successful bid permission was rendered on January 21, 1980 and announced publicly on the bulletin board of the court, and that the application of the successful bid permission and the written appeal were submitted on February 20, 1980. The decision of the successful bid permission is ordered to be sentenced by the court of auction and notified publicly on the bulletin board of the court, and it is not required by the law to deliver the original of the decision to interested parties. Thus, this appellant, the owner of the auction real estate, becomes aware of the fact that the auction procedure was in progress upon receiving the original of the decision of the commencement of auction (and it is clear that the notice of the auction date was served) as alleged above (and it is clear that the notice of the auction date was served) and in particular, the decision of the successful bid permission is dismissed without the assent of all Justices' grounds for appeal and the decision of the court below is not unlawful, and it is not justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the appeal or the appeal's negligence.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)