(a) Omission of evaluation on the extension of the object of auction and grounds for objection to the permission of auction;

(b)the existence of the mortgage on the extension of the building above the mortgaged;

(a) A building extended on the object of mortgage shall have effect on the extended building unless there are special reasons such as that it was attached to the building by the relationship of the other party;

B. The notice of the auction date, which was publicly announced with the value omitted from the appraisal of the above extension portion of the object of auction at the minimum auction price, cannot be exempt from the illegality, and the decision of granting a successful bid based on the premise of such unlawful public notice is also illegal.

Article 29 of the Auction Act, Article 33 of the Auction Act, Article 633 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Civil History District Court Order 68Ra1031 dated January 9, 1969

The original decision shall be reversed, and this case shall be remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

The re-appellant's grounds for re-appeal are examined.

According to the records, the real estate indicated in the application for auction of this case as the real estate is indicated as the real estate in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (location omitted), 1, 28, 14, 2, 200, 14, 200, and 46, and the order of appraisal of the office of the auction court as well as the order of appraisal of the above appraisal report (record 45, 46) at the auction court, but it can be known that the above building was extended to approximately 1.5 square meters on the building at the time of assessing the above building. Thus, unless there are special reasons such as that it was attached to another person's title, the right to collateral security of this case shall also affect the extended part, and therefore, according to the records, the extended part shall be excluded from the object of appraisal and shall not be remanded to the court below's first appraisal, and thus, the court below's decision of appraisal of the auction of this case shall not be found to have been made on the date of auction of this case.

This paper is reasonable.

The opinions of involved judges are consistent with this decision.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Marins (Presiding Justice)