logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1962. 2. 28. 선고 4294민재항640 판결
[부동산경락허가결정에대한재항고][집10(1)민,172]
Main Issues

(a)the authority of an agent for the applicant in the voluntary auction case;

(b) Grounds for an objection or appeal against a decision of permission for adjudication in a voluntary auction case;

Summary of Judgment

A right of representation concerning a request for auction shall also include the right to receive a service of decision on commencement of immovables due to a request for auction.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 24(4) and 33 of the Auction Act, Article 1 of the Judicial Secretariat Act, Articles 633, 641, and 642 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Long-term Ship Management

The court below

Seoul High Court Decision 61Ra539 delivered on August 2, 1961

Text

The reappeal shall be dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds for reappeal by the re-appellant's agent are as shown in the reasons for reappeal.

The right of attorney of the non-party, a representative for the establishment of the auction of this case, shall be interpreted to include the right to receive the service of the decision to commence the auction due to the establishment of auction, and the reason that the service of the decision to commence the auction of real estate to creditors is not legitimate shall not be a ground for appeal against the auction or the decision to permit the auction of the debtor or the owner, and the real estate of this case shall not be assessed in a lump sum, but shall be assessed for each real estate, but the real estate of this case was sold at a considerably reduced price because the auction is not the one who is the one who is the agent for the establishment of the auction of this case, but rather the one who is the one who is a representative for the establishment of the auction of this case, was sold at a price less than the first appraised price as much as the first one does not want to conduct a lump sum auction, and therefore there is no illegality in the decision of the court below.

Therefore, the re-appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges, by applying Article 400 prior to the amendment of Article 413 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)

arrow