[1] Whether to notify other co-owners of the date of auction and the date of auction at the auction of share in the co-owned property (affirmative)

[2] In a case where an application for a subsequent completion of the decision to grant a successful bid after full payment of the successful bid price is permitted, whether the decision to grant a successful bid becomes final and conclusive (negative), and whether there is a legitimate payment of the successful bid price (negative)

[1] The auction court shall notify other co-owners of the date of auction and the date of auction in the auction of the share of the co-owners, so if other co-owners of the auction real estate are not notified of the date of auction, an appeal may be filed with the interested parties on the ground of procedural defects.

[2] 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 prior to that, it cannot be deemed a legitimate payment of the successful bid price. Therefore, in a case where another co-owner's appeal against the decision of permission for auction in the auction procedure of shares jointly owned property is allowed, and where there is a defect in failing to notify other co-owners of the bid date and the date of the successful bid, the decision of permission for auction should be revoked by accepting

[1] Articles 607, 617(2), 641, and 649 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 160, 607, 617(2), 641, and 649 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 63Ma83 dated March 31, 1964 (No. 12-1, 12-1, 5520 dated July 2, 1965; Supreme Court Order 95Ma35 dated April 25, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 1948) / [2] Supreme Court Order 65Ma729 dated February 7, 1967 (No. 15-1, 81), Supreme Court Order 67Ma498 dated July 14, 1967 (No. 15-2, 188), Supreme Court Order 68Ma1090 dated November 5, 1968 (No. 16-3, 167) (No. 1967, No. 19485 decided Nov. 15, 196)

Appellant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for the re-appellant)

Busan District Court Order 97Ra101 dated March 26, 1997

The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below found that the auction court failed to notify the appellant, who is the co-owners of the auction real estate of the bid date and the bid date, while conducting the auction procedure of this case, but the appellant does not constitute an interested party as stipulated in Article 641 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is entitled to appeal against the decision of permission for the bid of this case, but does not constitute an interested party as stipulated in Article 607 of the same Act. Thus, there is no error of law in not notifying the bidding date and the bid date, and in the auction of the shares jointly owned, even if there is a procedural error in which other co-owners did not give other co-owners an opportunity to preferentially auction, even if other co-owners did not notify the other co-owners of the bid date and the bid date, the decision of permission for the bid of this case cannot be revoked upon the application of subsequent completion by the co-owners (see Supreme Court Order 69Ma922, Oct. 27, 1969).

However, the auction court should notify other co-owners of the auction date and the auction date (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 63Ma83, Mar. 31, 1964; Order 65Ma520, Jul. 2, 1965; Order 95Ma35, Apr. 25, 1995; etc.). If other co-owners of the auction real estate of this case fail to receive notice of the auction date, an appeal may be filed on the ground of procedural defects. Meanwhile, if an appeal is filed by the interested parties upon the completion of the auction period, the court below allowed the appeal by the completion of the auction period without any other reason, and thus, even if the auction court had the successful bidder pay the auction price by the expiration of the auction period, it cannot be deemed legitimate payment of the auction price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 196Ma165, Jul. 16, 197; Order 2007Ma16, Jul. 16, 1967). 197

Supreme Court Order 69Ma922 dated October 27, 1969 cited by the court below was different from the case and thus it cannot be invoked in this case.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)