[1] The case where there is a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction price

[2] The case holding that, in light of the fact that the aggregate amount of maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security established over the auction real estate reaches the amount of the appraisal on the auction real estate of the appraiser, there is a serious defect in the decision of the court of execution which set the minimum auction price because the appraisal is remarkably contrary to the general criteria of the appraisal

[1] Article 633 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that one of the grounds for an objection to a successful bid and there is a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction price. In order to establish a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction price, there must be circumstances such as the decision in violation of the procedure prescribed by law, or the decision based on the qualification or evaluation method is illegal on the ground that there is an illegality in the qualification or evaluation method of the appraiser, and the mere fact that the appraised price of the appraiser and the minimum auction price determined based on the appraisal are low cannot be seen as this. However, if the appraised calculated by the appraisal considerably violates the general standards of the appraisal or it is recognized that the appraised price is remarkably unreasonable by social norms,

[2] The case holding that even if the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security established on the auction real estate is determined by taking into account the collateral value of other real estate provided as additional collateral or the collateral value on the part of the building that was transferred for the same purpose as the collateral in fact, there is a serious defect in the executing court's decision that determined the minimum auction price, considering the fact that the aggregate of the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security established on the auction real estate reaches the number of times the amount of the appraisal on the auction real estate of the appraiser, and thus, the

[1] Articles 615 and 633 subparag. 6 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 615, 633 subparag. 6, and 642(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 95Ma453 delivered on July 12, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2931) / [2] Supreme Court Order 93Ma1934 delivered on February 24, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1013), Supreme Court Order 95Ma453 delivered on July 12, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2931)

T. Tourism Co., Ltd. (Attorney Doh-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Jeju District Court Order 99Ra54 dated February 2, 2000

The reappeal is dismissed.

The supplemental appellate brief and supplementary appellate brief filed after the lapse of the time limit are deemed to supplement the supplemental appellate brief.

Article 633 subparag. 6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that one of the grounds for an objection to a successful bid and there is a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction price. In order to find a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction price, there must be circumstances such as where the decision was made in violation of the procedure prescribed by the Act or where there is an illegal reason for qualification or evaluation method of an appraiser, and the mere fact that the appraised price and the minimum auction price determined by the appraisal are low cannot be deemed to constitute this. However, if the appraised price calculated by appraisal is deemed to be significantly contrary to the general standards of an appraisal or is deemed to be remarkably unreasonable under the social norms, it is reasonable to deem that there is a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction price (see Supreme Court Order 95Ma453, Jul. 12, 199

In light of such legal principles and records, the court below recognized the facts as to the appraisal value of the real estate in this case and the determination of the minimum auction price, and the establishment time of the establishment of the right to collateral security established on the said real estate and the maximum debt amount. Considering the circumstances indicated in its holding, the appraisal of this case seems to be significantly contrary to the general standards of appraisal and assessment or considerably unfair under social norms, and thus, the decision of the court of execution which determined the minimum auction price is deemed to have serious defects. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the determination of the court of execution which determined the minimum auction price by taking this into account, as alleged in the grounds for reappeal, and the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate in this case shall not be determined by grasping only the collateral value of the instant real estate, but also by taking into account the collateral value of other real estate which was actually performed by the hotel extension work that had been performed for the same purpose as the collateral value of the building transferred for the said security, and it shall not be deemed any different from the above circumstances cited in the grounds for reappeal.

The grounds of reappeal cannot be accepted in entirety.

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

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)