In an auction procedure by a financial institution upon application, where real estate has been appraised, it shall not be the reason for reappeal unless the result of permission of auction has an effect on it.

Even if there was an error that caused the owner of a house to assess real estate in violation of Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for Joint Loans by financial institutions, the ground for re-appeal shall not be affected by the decision of permission of auction.

Article 29 of the Auction Act, Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans by Financial Institutions

Appellant 1 et al.

Gwangju District Court Order 68Ra142 dated May 29, 1969

The reappeal is dismissed.

The Re-Appellant's ground of reappeal No. 1 is examined.

A contract to establish a mutual savings agreement between a creditor and a debtor as security of KRW 239,100,000 shall be concluded with a maximum debt amount of KRW 670,00,000, and at the same time, the mutual savings deposit contract did not execute the right of resistance prior to settlement of the dispute shall not be a legitimate ground for reappeal, unless otherwise asserted by the court below.

The second ground for reappeal is examined.

According to the records, the auction court shall have the court office of the first instance assess the subject matter of the auction in this case and conducted the appraised price of KRW 736,700,00 at the minimum auction price, and once the decision to grant the auction price of KRW 1,90,00 has become final and conclusive, but the successful bidder did not pay the auction price and held the auction price of KRW 2,305,50 as a result of re-auction. Thus, even if the successful bidder erred in the appraisal agency of the subject matter of the auction in domestic affairs, in this case, the decision to grant the auction does not affect the result of the decision to grant the auction in this case (see Supreme Court Order 67Ma1280, Feb. 6, 1968).

We examine the third ground for re-appeal.

According to the facts established by the court below, each site of this case is 71 square meters of the site in one fence, and all buildings which are the objects of auction are constructed on the site. Therefore, even if you can repay only a part of the real estate sold at auction, it is reasonable to sell the mortgaged debt en bloc in consideration of the economic, social and effective use of the site and the buildings on the ground.

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

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)