(a) Validity of service by public notice of requisite expenses;

B. Whether an auction should be conducted in a lump sum where two buildings are constructed on the land owned by the debtor (negative)

(c) Public announcement of lease relationship and grounds for appeal against decision of permission for auction;

(a) Even if the requirements of service by public notice were not met, the validity of service by public notice shall not be affected as long as service by public notice was made by the judge’s order;

B. In a case where two buildings are constructed on the land owned by the debtor, the court does not necessarily have to sell the site and two buildings en bloc.

C. In the public notice of the date of auction, even if there is a wrong statement as if there is no lease, the debtor cannot serve as the reason for appeal against the decision of permission of auction.

A. Article 179 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 615-2 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 618, 633, and 642 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court en banc Order 84Ma20 Dated March 15, 1984 (Gong1984,689) (Gong1984,689) Decided April 8, 1986 (Gong1986,755). Supreme Court Order 64Ma44 Dated June 26, 1964 and Order 64Ma880 Dated December 29, 1964 (Gong1980,12812) Dated April 25, 1980

Kim Go-si

Busan District Court Order 90Ra179 dated January 1, 1991

The reappeal is dismissed.

1. Judgment on the first ground for reappeal

Even if the requirements of service by public notice are not satisfied, as long as service by public notice was made by order of judge, the validity of service by public notice does not affect (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Order 84Ma20, Mar. 15, 1984). There is no reason to discuss.

2. Judgment on the second ground for reappeal

In a case where two buildings are constructed on the land owned by the debtor, the court does not necessarily have to sell the building site and two buildings en bloc (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 64Ma444, Jun. 24, 1964; Supreme Court Order 64Ma80, Dec. 29, 1964; etc.) and there is no reason for discussion.

3. Judgment on the third ground for reappeal

According to the records, it is not deemed that the appraisal of the appraiser's real estate or the investigation of real estate lease conducted by the owner of the real estate was erroneous as the theory of lawsuit, and even if the notice of auction date was erroneously stated as if there was no lease, the obligor cannot assert such erroneous reasons as the grounds for appeal against the decision of permission of auction (see Supreme Court Order 80Ma148, Apr. 25, 1980). Thus, there is no reason for discussion.

4. Therefore, the re-appeal by the debtor is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)