[1] The criteria for determining whether there is a serious defect in the preparation of a specification of goods under Article 633 subparagraph 6 of the former Civil Procedure Act, which is a ground for ex officio rejection of a successful bid

[2] The purpose of the system requiring the indication of real estate in the public notice of the auction date

[3] In a case where a tender specification and tender date notice was made for the purpose of opposing the above although the qualification certificate for acquisition of a bid object is not required under the Farmland Act, whether it constitutes a ground for refusing a successful bid under Article 633 subparag. 5 and subparag. 6 of the former Civil Procedure Act (affirmative)

[1] Article 617-2 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) provides that a court of execution shall prepare a statement of auction goods and keep a copy of the statement so that it can be perused to the general public. The purpose of this provision is to indicate the current status and legal relationship of the goods subject to auction to the general public and to prevent unexpected damages by allowing the applicant for purchase to easily obtain necessary information on the goods subject to auction, so that the applicant for purchase can not obtain predicted damages. Thus, the issue of whether the defect constitutes "when there is a serious defect in the preparation of a detailed statement of goods, which is the cause of ex officio denial of bid under Article 635 (2) and Article 633 subparagraph 6 of the same Act, is to be determined reasonably in accordance with specific matters in light of the purpose of the real estate auction and the system of specification of auction goods, focusing on which the applicant for purchase would have any impact on the decision of purchase or purchase price. This legal doctrine applies to bidding substitution for auction.

[2] Article 618 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) requires an indication of real estate in the public notice of the date of auction means that the interested parties are aware of the data to assess the objective actual price of the object of auction and the specific amount of the object of auction.

[3] In a case where there is a defect in the description of the goods for bidding and the public notice of the bidding date, even though it is not necessary to obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland under the Farmland Act, and there is a defect in the indication of real estate which will serve as a means of providing the necessary information on the goods for bidding to the public, such defect is deemed to have caused a serious impact on the applicant for the general purchase in determining the intention of purchase or the bid price. Thus, this constitutes a reason for denying the successful bid under Article 633 subparag. 5 and 6 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 202).

[1] Articles 617-2 (see current Article 105 of the Civil Execution Act), 633 subparagraph 6 (see current Article 121 subparagraph 5 of the Civil Execution Act), and 635 (2) (see current Article 123 (2) of the Civil Execution Act) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) / [2] Articles 617-2 and 618 (see current Article 106 of the Civil Execution Act) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) / [3] Article 633 subparagraph 5 (see current Article 61 subparagraph 5 (see current Article 121 subparagraph 5) of the former Civil Procedure Act) of the Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 200)

[1] Supreme Court Order 99Ma2696 dated September 6, 1999 (Gong199Ha, 2162), Supreme Court Order 99Ma4498 dated November 15, 1999 (Gong2000Sang, 124) Supreme Court Order 99Ma7804 dated January 19, 200 (Gong200Sang, 549) / [2] Supreme Court Order 94Ma1453 dated November 11, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 36) (Gong195Ma540 dated July 29, 195)

Re-appellant

Daejeon District Court Order 2001Ra698 Dated February 6, 2002

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

1. According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below rejected the appeal of this case on the ground that the court below did not find any error as alleged by the re-appellant in the process of applying for and proceeding with the auction of this case, and that there was no reason to revoke ex officio the decision of the

2. A. Article 617-2 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626, Jan. 26, 2002; hereinafter the same) provides that a court of execution shall prepare a statement of auction property stating the indication of real estate, the possessor and title of possession of real estate, and keep a copy of the statement of auction property so that the general public can peruse it. Article 618 of the same Act provides that the former Civil Procedure Act shall prepare a statement of auction property and keep a copy of the statement of auction property, the purpose of auction by compulsory execution, etc. Thus, it is intended to indicate an object of auction to the general public and to make it available for public inspection by disclosing its current status and legal relationship so that those who wish to purchase it can easily obtain necessary information on the object of auction and prevent unexpected damages. Thus, it is also reasonable to determine whether there is a significant defect in the list of auction property 90, 90, 90, 97, 90, 90, 97, 2, 33, etc.

B. However, according to the records, the report on the survey of the current status of the real estate on the subject matter of the bid in this case [the current status of the real estate in this case is examined as miscellaneous land (parking lot). The appraisal report on the appraiser preparation also stated that the status of the real estate in this case belongs to a general residential area and is a children's park which is an urban planning facility. The real estate in this case is planned to be a children's park which is an urban planning facility as a general residential area according to the urban planning plan. Thus, the real estate in this case is deemed not necessary as the source of the acquisition certificate under the Farmland Act when acquiring the real estate in the bidding procedure, on the other hand, it appears that the bid date announcement and tender specifications on the subject matter of the real estate in this case after September 5, 201, it is necessary to acquire the real estate in this case, and the Non-party 1's application form of the acquisition certificate of real estate in this case was made on the 20th of the land in this case, which was abolished on the bid date.

C. In light of the above legal principles and records as seen earlier, although it is not necessary to acquire the subject matter of bid in this case, there is a defect in the description of the bid in this case and the bidding date announcement to the purport of opposing the acquisition of the subject matter of bid in this case, and there is a real estate indication that will serve as a means of providing information on the subject matter of bid to the general public, and such defect has a significant impact on the decision of the purchaser or the bid price. Thus, it shall be deemed that the bid price under subparagraphs 5 and 6 of Article 633 of the former Civil Procedure Act is not acceptable.

D. Nevertheless, the court below rejected the appeal of this case based on the determination that such defects are excessive and the decision to permit the successful bid of this case is lawful. In so doing, there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the provisions of Articles 633 subparag. 5 and 6, 617-2 and 618 of the former Civil Procedure Act.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of reappeal, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)