In case where the service of the date is made by mail under Article 617(3) of the Civil Procedure Act after the delivery of the notification of auction date or the service by public notice to the interested persons, whether such service is lawful or not.

Article 617(3) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the service of notice of the auction date and the auction date shall be deemed to be a different special case with respect to the service of notice of the auction date and the auction date, so it is sufficient for the court to serve the notice by selecting the method as deemed appropriate in addition to the method of service of mail under the above provision. Thus, unlike the above provision, it cannot be denied the validity of service on the ground that the notice of the auction date was served by public notice by means of delivery or by public notice without using the method of delivery by mail under the above provision from the beginning. Thus, even if the court served the notice of the auction date and the auction date again by the method of service under the above provision, it is legitimate to serve the notice of the auction date and the auction date after the service by mail.

Article 617(3) of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Busan District Court Order 94Ra185 Dated December 13, 1994

The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

(1) According to Article 617(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, where the court notifies the interested parties of the auction date and the auction date, such notification may be sent by registered mail to the address of interested parties indicated in the execution record. This is merely a different special exception as to the service of notice of auction date and the auction date for the prompt progress of the auction procedure. Thus, in the notice of auction date and the auction date, it is sufficient for the court to serve the notice by selecting the method of delivery as deemed appropriate other than the method of delivery by mail as well as the method of delivery by the above provision. Thus, the validity of the service cannot be denied on the ground that the service was conducted by means of delivery by public notice or by meeting the requirements, unlike the above provision. Therefore, even if the court served the notification to interested parties by delivery or service by public notice without using the method of delivery by mail under the above provision from the beginning, and then served by the post after the auction date and the auction date by the method of delivery by mail under the above provision, it shall be deemed legitimate.

(2) Nevertheless, as long as the first instance court served the co-owners of the real estate of this case at the first time by public notice of the bidding date, it is not permissible to serve the real estate by mail at the above co-owner's domicile on the registry, and thus, the court below held that the notice of the bid date and the bid date by the above mail delivery method is unlawful. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the auction date and the method of serving notice of the auction date under Article 617 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act. The argument pointing this out

(3) 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 Justices.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)