(b) The legality of the measure taken to require an auctioneer to certify the sale by the head of the government office where the case is located within the date of the change or postponed auction; and

(b) The measures taken by the head of the government office where the auction farmland in question is located shall not be contrary to the Constitution or laws, where the change or postponed auction date provides for a certificate of sale by the highest bidder of the auction farmland in question.

When a special appellant files an appeal against the decision of permission of adjudication of this case, the court below decided that the appeal shall be dismissed, as the special appellant fails to comply with the security equivalent to 5/10 of the successful bid price under Article 5-2 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuit (the "Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuit" clearly shows that it is a clerical error in the law of the financial institution) although it should deposit the security equivalent to 5/10 of the successful bid price under Article 5-2 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits. In light of the records, the court below's measures are just and the above Article 5-2 (1) of the Act provides the conditions on the exercise of the right to appeal, and it does not limit the exercise of the right to appeal itself, since the above provision cannot be deemed to violate the Constitution and the law, the highest price for the auction farmland shall not be against the Constitution or the law.

Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)