(a) Where it is found that there is a serious defect in determining the minimum auction price;

(b) Where there are serious defects in the determination of the minimum auction price because the appraised value of an appraiser is remarkably unfair;

A. In order to have a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction price, there must be circumstances such as in violation of the procedure prescribed by law or in violation of the procedure of an appraiser’s qualification or evaluation method, and the reason that the determination based on it is illegal is simply short of the appraised value of an appraiser and the minimum auction price determined thereby, shall not be a ground for objection. However, in a case where the appraised value calculated by appraisal is deemed significantly contrary to the general standards of appraisal and assessment or is deemed considerably unreasonable under the social norms, such circumstance alone should be deemed as having a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction

B. The case holding that, even though the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security is general below the market price of the target real estate, the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security established five years prior to the base date of the evaluation exceeds the appraised value, the right to collateral security, the amount exceeding the appraised value of which was additionally established during several times thereafter, and the land price calculated according to the officially assessed individual land price exceeds the appraised value, as well as the actual sale case also exceeds the appraised value, there is a significant defect in the decision of the auction court that determined the minimum auction price as it is, because it is objectively unreasonable.

(a)Article 615, Article 633 subparagraph 6(b) of the Civil Procedure Act;

Supreme Court Order 91Ma239 Dated December 16, 1991 (Gong1992, 633) dated February 24, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1013)

[Judgment of the court below]

Gwangju District Court Order 93Ra10 Dated March 15, 1995

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 633 subparagraph 6 of the current Civil Procedure Act lists one of the grounds for an objection to a successful bid, where there is a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction price. In order to establish a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction price, there must be circumstances such as the decision in violation of the procedure prescribed by law or the decision based on the qualification or evaluation method of an appraiser, and the reason that the appraisal price and the minimum auction price determined by the appraisal are very low shall not be a ground for objection. However, if the appraised price calculated by appraisal are remarkably contrary to the general standards of appraisal or it is deemed that there is a significant defect in the determination of the minimum auction price, such reason alone shall be deemed that there is a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction price.

According to the records, an appraiser who assessed the price of the land of this case was not only 5 percent of the secured debt or the sale price of the land of this case, but also 53,461,200 won per 7,800 square meters as of November 20, 1992 without any reasonable ground. The auction court determined the above appraised price of this case at the minimum auction price of 72,00,000 won as of June 4, 1987, and the sale price of this case was 19,000 won under the name of 10,000 won as of October 14, 1987, and the appraisal price of this case was 19,50,000 won under the name of 10,000 won as of October 5, 1989, and the appraisal price of this case was 10,000 won under the name of 10,000 won as of August 10, 1989.

All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)