[1] In a case where an appellate court dismissed an appeal against an immediate appeal against a decision of permission of adjudication, and where a decision of permission of adjudication is revoked by citing an appeal, a person entitled to reappeal

[2] Whether an interested party can file an immediate appeal if a successful bid is awarded without notifying the interested party of the bidding date (affirmative with qualification), and whether specific or abstract damage to property constitutes an element for filing an immediate appeal (negative)

[3] In a case where an interested party fails to comply with the appeal period against the decision of permission of auction because the auction court failed to notify the auction date, whether the appeal is permitted (affirmative)

[4] In a case where an application for an appeal is permitted by an interested party on the decision of permission of a successful bid after full payment of the successful bid price, whether the decision of permission of a successful bid becomes final and conclusive and the payment of the price of a legitimate successful bid can be deemed to have been made (negative), and the termination period of a subsequent appeal against

[1] In cases where an appellate court dismisses an immediate appeal against a decision of permission of adjudication, only the appellant may file a reappeal even if there is an interest in the appeal, and in cases where the appellate court revokes the original decision by citing the appeal and made a reasonable decision again or made a decision to remand it to the lower court, the interested party to view the damage as a result of the new decision may file a reappeal.

[2] If the auction court continues the auction procedure without notifying the interested parties of the bidding date and the bid date, and the successful bid is made, the interested parties may file an immediate appeal against the decision on the permission for the successful bid, as it is deemed to have suffered damages in violation of the procedural rights guaranteed by the law, unless the interested parties were aware of the bidding date and could take necessary measures to protect their rights by participating in the bidding on their own, even if the interested parties failed to receive such notification of the bidding date, barring any circumstances such as the interested parties being able to take necessary measures to protect their rights by attending the bidding on their own date. Thus, an immediate appeal may not be filed only where the interested parties have any property damage,

[3] If an auction court fails to notify interested parties of the date of auction, etc. and it fails to observe the period of appeal against the decision of permission of auction, the interested parties shall be deemed to have failed to observe the period of appeal due to reasons not attributable to themselves, barring special circumstances, and in such cases, the subsequent completion of appeal as recognized by the principle of equity shall be allowed.

[4] In a case where an interested party files an appeal by the subsequent completion of the decision of permission for auction, if the court of appeal grants the subsequent completion of the decision, the decision of permission for auction does not become final and conclusive, and thus, even if the auction court had the successful bidder pay the successful bid price by setting the deadline for payment of the successful bid price with the knowledge that the decision of permission for auction has already become final and conclusive before that time, it cannot be deemed a legitimate payment of the successful bid price. Thus, the application for subsequent completion cannot be accepted on the ground that the auction was completed upon the completion of the distribution procedure.

[1] Article 442 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 129 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Articles 90, 104(2), 121 subparag. 1, and 129(1) of the Civil Execution Act / [3] Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 104(2) and 129 of the Civil Execution Act / [4] Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 129 and 142 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 63Ma64 dated January 16, 1964 (Gong1985, 991) 85Ma123 dated April 2, 1985 (Gong1985, 991) / [2] Supreme Court Order 92Ma103 dated April 21, 1992 (Gong1992, 1817) 95Ma320 dated April 22, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1936 April 15, 197), Supreme Court Order 99Ma5256 dated November 16, 197 (Gong2000, 126) dated 98Ma1979 decided Jan. 31, 200 (Supreme Court Order 97Ma19684 decided Nov. 16, 209)

Appellant 1 and one other (Law Firm General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Su-spon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon District Court Order 200Ra1338 dated December 28, 2000

Each reappeal is dismissed.

1. Part of the reappeal by the re-appellant 1

A. As to the First Claim

If an appellate court dismisses an immediate appeal against a decision of permission of a successful bid, only the appellant may file a reappeal, and even if other persons have an interest in the ruling, the reappeal may not be filed (see Supreme Court Order 85Ma123, Apr. 2, 1985; Supreme Court Order 92Ma103, Apr. 21, 1992, etc.). However, if the appellate court revokes the original ruling after accepting the appeal and rendered a reasonable decision again, or the appellate court remanded the case to the original court, the interested party may file a reappeal, which shall be deemed to have been affected by the new decision.

It is just that the record of the re-appellant's immediate appeal of this case, which is an interested party to the decision of the appellate court which accepted an immediate appeal against the decision of adjudication of adjudication of adjudication of adjudication of adjudication of adjudication of adjudication of adjudication of adjudication of the Supreme Court, is sent to the Supreme Court

This part of the grounds for reappeal is rejected.

B. As to Chapter 2

If an auction court continues to award a bid by continuing the auction procedure without notifying the interested parties of the bidding date and the bid date, the interested parties may file an immediate appeal against the decision of permission for successful bidding since the interested parties may have suffered damages by infringement of their rights in the procedure guaranteed by the Act by attending the bidding on the bidding date and taking measures necessary for protecting their rights, even if the interested parties failed to receive such notification of the bidding date, barring any circumstances such as the interested parties being aware of the bidding date and having been able to take measures necessary for protecting their rights by participating in the bidding (see Supreme Court Order 9Ma5256, Nov. 15, 1999; Supreme Court Order 9Ma763, Jan. 31, 200; etc.; Supreme Court Order 9Ma7663, Nov. 31, 200; Supreme Court Order 200Ma6319, Mar. 22, 201).

The judgment of the court below that the omission of the notice of auction date to the appellant who is the right to collateral security of this case constitutes a ground for denial of auction under Articles 617(2) and 633 subparag. 1 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the "former Civil Procedure Act") is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the decision of rejection of auction or misunderstanding of the interpretation of Article 633 subparag. 1 of the former Civil Procedure Act.

This part of the grounds for reappeal is rejected.

C. As to the third ground for appeal

If an auction court fails to notify interested parties of the date of auction, etc. and it fails to observe the appeal period against the decision of permission of auction, the interested parties shall be deemed to have failed to observe the appeal period due to reasons not attributable to themselves (see Supreme Court Order 89Ma888, Nov. 27, 1989). In such cases, it shall be allowed to complete the appeal period as a remedy recognized by the principle of equity.

In addition, where an interested party files an appeal by the completion of a decision of permission for a successful bid, if the court of appeal grants an appeal by the completion of a decision of permission for a successful bid, the decision of permission for a successful bid does not become final and conclusive even in cases where there is no reason to file an appeal by other reasons, and thus, even if the auction court had the successful bidder pay the successful bid price by setting the deadline for payment of the successful bid price, it cannot be deemed a legitimate payment of the successful bid price (see Supreme Court Order 97Ma962, Mar. 4, 1998). Thus, the application for a subsequent completion is not acceptable on the ground that the auction is completed upon the completion of the distribution procedure (see Supreme Court Order 68Ma1090, Nov. 5, 1968).

Therefore, the Supreme Court Order 69Ma922 dated October 27, 1969, which held to the effect that once a decision to grant a successful bid becomes final and conclusive and the successful bid price is paid and the auction is completed as a result of the completion of the distribution procedure, the decision to grant a successful bid cannot be revoked upon the application of a subsequent completion, is inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court, and thus, is modified.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is just as it is in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the application for subsequent completion.

This part of the grounds for reappeal is also rejected.

2. Re-appealed portion of Suwon District Livestock Industry Cooperatives

The re-appellant's Suwon District Livestock Cooperatives did not submit a separate re-appeal, and the re-appeal does not include the grounds for re-appeal, and there are no other matters to be investigated ex officio. Therefore, the re-appeal by the re-appellant is dismissed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each reappeal by the re-appellant is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The final judgment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) is delivered with Jin-hun Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)