Requirements for filing an immediate appeal against a decision of permission of a successful bid or a decision of permission of a successful bid as an interested party under Article 607 subparagraph 4 of the former Civil Procedure Act.

[1] Article 607 subparagraph 4 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) (see Article 90 subparagraph 4 of the current Civil Execution Act)

Supreme Court Order 94Ma1342 dated September 13, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2786) 94Ma1455 dated September 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2787) Supreme Court Order 99Ma3792 dated August 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 2158)

Co., Ltd. (trade name before the change: Effective electricity) and one other

Other Party

Suwon District Court Order 2003Ra370 dated December 26, 2003

All reappeals shall be dismissed.

Judgment ex officio is made.

In order to file an immediate appeal against the decision of permission of auction or the decision of permission of successful bid under Article 607 subparagraph 4 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002), an interested party shall be a person who is an interested party under Article 607 subparagraph 4 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Sep. 14, 1994). Thus, if the right holder fails to prove his/her right to the auction court, he/she shall not be an interested party in the auction procedure (see Supreme Court Order 94Ma1455 of Sept. 14,

According to the records, the re-appellant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "re-appellant Co., Ltd.") is a creditor of Samju General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the " Samju General Construction") who is the creditor of the application for voluntary auction of this case. On January 23, 2003, the re-appellant reported on January 23, 200 to exercise the right of retention on the auction real estate of this case by subrogation at the auction court. On February 28, 2003, the re-appellant 2 reported on February 28, 2003 that the auction real estate of this case was occupied and managed by the auction court as the lien holder

Therefore, in light of the records, the re-appellant's whether he falls under an interested party under Article 607 subparagraph 4 of the above Act, and the re-appellant's construction report in lieu of the comprehensive construction of Samju, the re-appellant's construction report was submitted only a copy of the real estate register when he reported the right of retention. The re-appellant 2 submitted only the copy of the real estate register when he reported the right of retention. The above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the third comprehensive construction or each lien of the re-appellant 2. The records of this case are insufficient to find any trace of the fact that the re-appellant proves otherwise about the acquisition and continuation of each of the above lien, so the re-appellant does not fall under an interested party in the auction procedure of this case. Accordingly, the court below's decision of successful bid permission cannot be deemed as an interested party who can file a reappeal against the decision of successful bid permission of this case. Thus, the re-appellant 2 is not eligible for the re-appellant's decision of the

Therefore, the reappeal of this case filed by the re-appellant without the eligibility of the re-appellant is illegal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)