Whether the validity of the mortgage in the voluntary auction is a ground for appeal against the decision of permission of the successful bid.

In the case of voluntary auction, it is different from the case of compulsory auction based on the so-called title of debt, and it can be an objection to the decision of commencement of auction, as well as an objection to the decision of commencement of auction, and an appeal against the decision of permission of auction.

Article 33 of the Auction Act

Supreme Court Order 73Ma140 Decided March 13, 1973

Appellant 1 and 2 others

Cheongju District Court Order 79Ra7 dated June 1, 1979

The original decision is reversed and the case is remanded to Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that the ground for appeal that the re-appellant provided real estate for auction purpose owned by the re-appellant as security to the creditor, and that the re-appellant was using the seal of the re-appellant, which did not constitute the ground for appeal as to the decision of commencement of auction, does not constitute the ground for appeal as to the decision of permission of auction of this case.

However, in the case of voluntary auction, the issue of whether a mortgage, which is the basis of auction, has been established due to the so-called compulsory auction based on the name of debt, can be a ground for appeal against the decision of commencement of auction as well as an objection against the decision of commencement of auction (Supreme Court Order 73Ma140 Dated March 13, 1973, Supreme Court Order 63Ma98 Dated April 13, 1964). Therefore, the court below should deliberate and decide on the existence of the reason, but it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the ground for appeal against the decision of permission of auction, and there is a ground for re-appeal as to the ground for appeal.

Therefore, by the assent of all participating Justices, the original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the original court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)