Even if there is any fact that the judge, who has issued the order of the court below, participated in the auction order and price reduction procedure in the auction procedure of the court of first instance, if there is no fact that he participated in the decision of the permission of the auction, it cannot be said that he was involved in

Even if there is a fact that the judge, who has received the original order, participated in the auction order and the price reduction procedure in the auction procedure of the first instance court, even if there is no fact that he was involved in the decision of permission for the auction, it cannot be said that he was involved in the previous trial which became an appeal.

Article 37 of the Civil Procedure Act

Han-hee et al. and one other

Busan District Court Decision 72Ra8 delivered on February 24, 1972

(A) The re-appeal by the Re-Appellant is dismissed.

(B) The reappeal Kim Jong-hwan's reappeal is dismissed.

(1) First, it is clear that the re-appeal by leapman is filed in the health room, and this re-appeal is dismissed on the grounds that it is unlawful.

(2) Next, it is reasonable to regard the reappeal of Kim Jong-hwan. The presiding judge (name omitted) who issued the order of the court below in this case is involved in the auction order and price reduction procedure in the auction procedure of the first instance court of this case, but in this case, there is no fact that the judge (name omitted) participated in the decision of the auction permit which was the previous trial of this case, and thus, in this case, it cannot be said that the judge was involved in the previous trial which became an objection against the case. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.

The opinions of involved judges are consistent with this decision.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)