[1] If an interested party under Article 607 subparagraph 4 of the former Civil Procedure Act submits an immediate appeal after a decision of permission for a successful bid or a decision of permission for a successful bid, and submits documents evidencing such fact, whether an immediate appeal is appropriate (negative)

[2] Where part of the subject matter of a successful tender is destroyed before the date of payment of the successful tender price is designated after the decision to permit the successful tender price becomes final and conclusive, whether to permit the reduction (affirmative) and the meaning of the time when part of the subject matter

[1] Article 607 subparag. 4 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) (see current Article 90 subparag. 4 of the Civil Execution Act) Articles 572 and 578 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 94Ma1342 dated September 13, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2786) 2004Ma118 dated June 14, 2004 / [2] Supreme Court Order 73Ma912 dated December 12, 1973 (Gong1974, 7694) 78Ma248 dated July 24, 1979 (Gong1979, 12101) 203Ma1655 dated December 24, 2004 (Gong205Sang, 234)

Bospasavivis et al.

Suwon District Court Order 2004Ra94 dated December 21, 2004

The reappeals' reappeals' re-appeals' re-appeals, friendlys' interests, and Song-youngs' interests are all dismissed. The reappeals' re-appeals' Bos' Ospas' interests are dismissed.

1. We examine ex officio the re-appellant's degree of case, friendly, interest, and re-appeal of Song-young.

Even though there is a person who has acquired a mortgage on the real estate after the entry of the decision on commencing auction and the registration of the decision on commencing auction had been made for the purpose of exercising a security right, the court of auction cannot be seen as the "holder of the above real estate recorded in the register" who is an interested party under Article 607 subparagraph 3 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply), which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 728 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 200), but if that person proves such fact in the auction court, the "person who proves such

However, in order to file an immediate appeal against a decision of permission or permission of successful bidding by interested parties as stipulated in subparagraph 4 above, such fact shall be attested until the decision of permission of successful bid or permission of successful bid is made. If an immediate appeal is filed after the decision of permission of successful bid or permission of successful bid is made and documents evidencing such fact are submitted only after the decision of permission of successful bid or permission of successful bid, such appeal shall not be an interested party as stipulated in subparagraph 4. Thus, it is unlawful (see Supreme Court Order 94Ma1342, Sept. 13, 1994; Supreme Court Order 2004Ma118, Jun. 14, 2004, etc.).

According to the records, the Re-Appellants filed a reappeal on June 12, 2003, after the decision to permit the successful bid of this case and the decision to appeal against it (U.S. District Court 2003Ra86), and filed a reappeal on June 12, 2003, and only reported it to the auction court to which the right to collateral was transferred from Park Dong-dong, which is the right to collateral security of the auction real estate of this case. After the decision of the court below was notified, the Re-Appellants filed a reappeal on this point. Meanwhile, the Re-Appellants, friendlys, Heung-young, and Song-young filed a reappeal on December 28, 2004, after the decision of successful bid of this case was made by the court below. In light of the above acknowledged facts and legal principles, it is difficult to view the re-appellants as interested parties entitled to file a reappeal against the original judgment. Accordingly, all of the re-Appellants of this case are unlawful.

2. The second re-appellants' grounds for reappeal are examined as to the second re-appellants' grounds for reappeal.

It is reasonable to view that the successful bidder's application for reduction of the successful bid price has been made to the auction court because the successful bidder's application for reduction of the successful bid price is reasonable in the event that the successful bidder's application for reduction of the price of the successful bid was made to the auction court due to the reasons not attributable to the owner, debtor, or purchaser of the successful bid before the date of payment of the successful bid price was determined and the decision to permit the successful bid price became final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decisions 78Ma248, Jul. 24, 1979; 2003Ma165, Dec. 24, 2004; 2003Ma165, Dec. 24, 2004, etc.). Meanwhile, it is reasonable to view that part of the successful bid price is not only physical loss but also includes the case where the successful bidder becomes unable to acquire the ownership of the relevant successful bidder due to reasons such as cancellation of the decision to commence the successful bid sale.

The court below is just in taking measures to reduce the price corresponding to six real estate among the successful bid real estate of this case on the ground that the decision to commence auction was revoked, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reduction of the price in case of partial destruction of the object of successful bid as otherwise alleged in the grounds of

In addition, if a part of the successful bidder is destroyed, there is no ground that the auction court may revoke ex officio the decision to permit the successful bidder even without the application of the successful bidder under the former Civil Procedure Act, and on the other hand, as long as the decision to permit the successful bidder for the six real estate of this case has been revoked, the decision to permit the successful bidder is naturally invalidated. Therefore, even if the court below did not separately decide to revoke the decision to permit the successful bidder and to refuse the successful bidder for the above real estate, there is no error

3. Therefore, the re-appeals of the re-appellants, friendlys, interest, and Song-young are all dismissed. The re-appeals of the Re-Appellants, ABS, Inc. are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)