A. Although the error of serving a decision to dismiss an appeal against the initial auction was lost the opportunity to re-appeal, as long as the first auction was lawfully conducted due to the payment of the successful bidder's price, and the second auction was held by another person, the error of serving the above auction cannot be the reason for appeal against the decision to permit the second auction.

B. The reason that the auction price was lower than the market price cannot be a legitimate ground for re-appeal against the decision to grant the auction.

A. Even if the first auction was duly conducted due to the outstanding payment of the successful bidder's outstanding payment, and thus, the loss of the opportunity to file a reappeal was cured due to the above re-auction, and thus, the error of service cannot be the reason for filing a complaint against the decision of permission of auction of re-auction.

(b) The reason that the auction price is lower than the market price cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal against the decision of approval of the auction.

Article 642 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Jeonju District Court Order 70Ra6 dated April 25, 1970

The reappeal is dismissed.

The Re-Appellant's grounds for re-appeal are determined.

The gist of the first ground for reappeal was that the appeal was filed on August 27, 1969 in the auction of this case, and the appellant did not notify his dismissal decision to the appellant, and thus the appellant lost the opportunity for reappeal. According to the records, the court's error in the auction court's decision, such as the plaintiff's error, stated the same △△△dong, ○○ Dong, Gunsan-dong, which was the same △△△△△, but the decision of successful bid was made again on December 18, 1969, which was due to the successful bidder's failure to pay the successful bid price, and the disadvantage of the re-appellant at the time was cured by the re-auction, which was the result of the above re-auction, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a ground for appeal against the decision of permission of auction of this case, and the court below's error in its decision of permission of auction of this case cannot be justified and there is no legitimate ground for appeal as to the fact that the auction court's auction price was groundless compared with the market price in this case.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)