When an objection may be raised against a ruling on commencement of auction.

An interested party may raise an objection against the decision of commencement of auction after the decision of permission of auction becomes final and conclusive or the decision of dismissal of an objection against the decision of commencement which was filed once an application is made, until the successful bidder pays the secured debt and the expenses of execution until the successful bidder pays the successful bid price in full.

Article 28(1) of the Auction Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 84Ra411 Dated February 23, 1985

The reappeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds for reappeal.

1. According to the provisions of Article 28(1) of the Voluntary Auction Act, interested parties may file an objection to the auction court until full payment of the successful bid price is made. Thus, even after the decision of permission of auction becomes final and conclusive or the decision of dismissal of an objection to the decision of commencement that applied at one time becomes final and conclusive, interested parties may file an objection to the decision of commencement of auction until the successful bidder pays the secured debt and the execution cost and raise an objection to the decision of commencement of auction until the successful bidder pays full payment of the successful bid price. Therefore, the debtor cannot be admitted only because the decision of dismissal of an objection against the decision of commencement of auction that first filed an application after the decision of permission of auction became final and conclusive and the decision of dismissal of the successful bid price becomes final and conclusive is merely an independent opinion asserted by the court below as erroneous that the above repayment deposit of the debtor is valid.

2. The Re-Appellant asserts that the court below erred in finding that the secured obligation of this case was extinguished due to the repayment deposit as stated in its holding, but it does not constitute a ground under Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and therefore, it cannot be a legitimate ground for re-appeal against the order of the court below.

3. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju