Whether a corporate representative's qualification can be proved with a certificate of corporate seal impression in an auction procedure (negative)

In light of the urgency, clarity, etc. required in the tendering procedure, the principle of qualification as a corporate registration certificate shall be applied uniformly. Therefore, in the auction procedure, the qualification of the corporate representative is only a document proving the identity of the corporate seal impression by the corporate registration certificate, and it cannot be proved by the corporate seal impression certificate that cannot be viewed as a document certifying the qualification of the representative.

Articles 103(3) and 268 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 62(3) of the Rules on Civil Execution

Namdo-type Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Taeil, Attorneys Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2006Na1448 delivered on August 2, 2006

Gwangju District Court Order 2014Ra19 dated April 2, 2014

The reappeal shall be dismissed. The costs of the reappeal shall be borne by the petitioner.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In light of the urgency, clarity, etc. required in the tendering procedure, the principle of qualification shall be applied uniformly. Therefore, in the auction procedure, the qualification of the representative of a corporation is only a document proving the identity of the corporation’s seal impression by a corporate registration certificate, and it cannot be proved by a corporate seal impression certificate that cannot be viewed as a document certifying the qualification of the representative.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below determined that the applicant excluded the applicant from the opening on the ground that the applicant failed to indicate the representative on the date bid list and submitted only a certificate of corporate seal impression, and the applicant cannot be verified because he did not submit a certificate of corporate

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error contrary to the Constitution, Acts, orders, or rules that affected the judgment.

In addition, the applicant asserts that the enforcement officer should have given the applicant an opportunity to submit a certificate of corporate registration before making the highest bidder's decision, but there is no obligation to give the enforcement officer such an opportunity after the conclusion of the tender.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and the costs of reappeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)