Whether an assertion that an auction has been conducted by a forged notarial deed can be a ground for reappeal

The assertion that a compulsory auction is conducted by a forged notarial deed is a substantive reason for the validity of the name of debt, so it cannot be a legitimate reason for re-appeal.

Article 642(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Daejeon District Court Order 80Ra43 dated April 4, 1980

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds for reappeal are examined.

The assertion that the object of the auction of this case is being used as a cultivation place, which is an export industry, does not have any reason to affect the decision of permission of the auction of this case, and that the compulsory auction of this case is carried out in a forged notarial deed is not only the substantive reason as to the validity of the name of the debt but also the fact that it was not asserted until the original trial. Thus, the reappeal cannot be a legitimate reason.

Therefore, all arguments are groundless and are so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Seo-ho (Presiding Justice)