Whether the certification of the agency located in farmland submitted to the executing court after the decision to permit the auction is the administrative disposition on which the decision to permit the farmland auction was based.

In a case where a quasi-examination was filed after the decision of permission of auction was final and conclusive, the proof of the office where the farmland was located, which was submitted to the court of execution, was revoked thereafter, the above proof cannot be deemed to have been an administrative disposition which was the basis of the decision of permission of auction, which was the object of application for quasi-examination, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a ground for quasi-examination

Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Daejeon District Court Order 72Ra84 dated May 23, 1973

The original decision is reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds for reappeal of the re-appellant Kim Jong-sung are examined.

According to the records, in the procedure for compulsory auction of this case, the execution court announced the decision of permission of auction of this case on July 14, 1971 and announced it on the day of public notice on the bulletin board of the court. Thus, the decision became final and conclusive on July 22, 1971 after the period of one week, which was the period of immediate appeal, and the proof of the agency where the land was located where the non-furnal of Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, was revoked on March 14, 1972 after the above decision of permission of auction became final and conclusive and submitted to the execution court later. Thus, it is obvious that the above decision of permission of auction was issued on August 17, 1971 and August 21, 1971. Thus, the above proof cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition which was the basis of the above decision of permission of auction of this case, and it cannot be viewed as having affected the above decision of permission of auction of this case by mistake under Article 28 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the re-appellant's remaining grounds of re-appellant's reappeal and the grounds of re-appeal of the same order are reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)