The case holding that there is a doubt that notification of the auction date is not illegal

According to the resident registration card record, the Re-Appellant's notification of auction date was received at the place where the Re-Appellant's father and mother, and the third person's name was not at the place where the correction was made, and the Re-Appellant's name was not at the place where the correction was made.

Article 30(2) of the Auction Act, Article 165 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 76Ra381 Dated August 12, 1977

The order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

(1) We examine the second ground for reappeal of the re-appellant.

According to the records, the auction court issued a ruling to commence the auction of this case on July 16, 1976, and issued a peremptory notice to the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu and the head of Han River Tax Office, the competent authority, at issue on July 16, 1976, to notify the amount and the due date of payment to July 30, 1976, in case where there is any unpaid or unpaid taxes or other public charges on the above building. Therefore, the purport of the auction court is to include that if there is no notification within the above period, it shall be deemed that there is no unpaid public charges, etc., and since the head of the above head of the tax office and the head of the tax office did not respond to this peremptory notice, the auction court recognized that there is no taxes and public charges on this building, and conducted the auction procedure without indicating whether there is any unpaid taxes and public charges on this building at the date of the auction.

If so, the auction court notified the head of the Gu having jurisdiction over the place of the auction real estate and the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over whether taxes and public imposts exist, but there is no reply, so it shall be deemed that there is no objection to the taxation and public imposts, and it shall not be deemed that the public notice of the auction date is illegal, such as the theory of lawsuit (this decision 71Ma403, June 30, 1971 and 64Ma996, January 20, 196).

(2) We examine the second ground of appeal.

According to the records, the original copy of the decision on commencement of auction of this case was lawfully served on July 22, 1976 (No. 40 of the record) at the address of the re-appellant (No. 40 of the record), and the obligee applied for the correction of address to the re-appellant on the 16th day of the same month prior to the service of this case (No. 2 of the record) and revised the address to the address (No. 2 of the address). Accordingly, the notice of the auction date on September 21, 1976 to the re-appellant was received on September 9 of the same year at the corrected place by the Re-Appellant ○○○○ (here ○○○) and October 21, 1976 at the same place of the re-appellant, and the notice of auction date on November 26, 1976 at the same place of the re-appellant was received on November 17 of the same year respectively.

However, examining the entry of the resident registration record card issued on November 30, 1976, which was submitted by the re-appellant along with the reason for the appeal, the re-appellant's address is the (name 1 omitted) above as stated in the original application for auction in this case, and there is no trace that the above creditor's address was transferred to the corrected address, and only Nonparty 1 exists, and it does not appear that the re-appellant's wife is the ○○○○ who received the notice of auction date.

(On the other hand, according to the family register copy attached to this case's re-appellant's statement, the re-appellant's mother is non-party 2, not non-party 12 years prior to his mother's death). In this case, there is no doubt that the auction court's notice for the above three times against the re-appellant was not illegal, and there is no doubt that the court below's appeal should be dismissed by judging that the above notice was a legitimate service by only the delivery report, even though the court below clearly stated this point.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)