In case where the amount of the claim can be repaid by the sale price of only one of the sites and the buildings on the ground, the joint auction for the above site and the building on the ground;

In case where a building is constructed on a site and a blanket application for auction has been filed, even if the building site and the building are separate real estate on the register, and the amount of the claim can be repaid by the sale price of only one of them, it shall be treated separately, and if the owner is different, it shall be restricted in the mutual utilization relationship between the real estate, and in case of reducing the economic value of the real estate, it shall be attributed to the same owner by conducting a blanket auction.

Article 33 of the Auction Act

Supreme Court Order 70Ma639 Dated April 20, 1971

Appellant 1 and 19 others

Incheon District Court Order 84Ra114 dated April 10, 1985

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to Article 367 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the litigation procedures of the appellate court pursuant to Article 413(1) of the same Act, a petition of appeal shall not include ① the parties and their legal representatives (2) the indication of the decision subject to appeal and the purport of the appeal as to the decision, but shall not require the entry of the grounds for appeal. In this case, it shall not be deemed that the scope of appeal and the trial is not specified solely on the purport of the appeal. Accordingly, the argument of the lower court’s decision cannot be adopted.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

In a case where a building is constructed on the site and an application for auction is filed in a lump sum, the building site and the building are separate real estate on the register, and even if one of them can be repaid by the proceeds of sale, if the owner is treated separately, it would be restricted in the mutual utilization relationship between the real estate and would reduce the economic value of the defendant's real estate. In such a case, it is reasonable to hold a lump sum auction and belong to the same owner (see Supreme Court Order 70Ma639, Apr. 20, 1971). According to the records and the reasoning of the order of the court below, it is clear that the building of this case which was put up for auction is the building at issue, and it is the building at issue, the claim for auction cannot be repaid in full. Thus, the auction court's revocation of the decision of permission of auction and the disposition of the court below which did not grant the above permission of auction shall not be justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory of auction.

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

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)