Whether the procedure conducted by a financial institution through the minimum auction price determined by the evaluation of a person who is not a financial institution is legitimate for a real estate auction case which becomes an applicant.

In case where the creditor is a financial institution, two persons selected by the court of auction shall not determine the average appraised value of real estate to be sold by the financial institution as the minimum auction price, but shall execute the auction procedure by setting the appraised value of a person who is not a financial institution as the minimum auction price.

Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans by Financial Institutions

Re-appellant

Daejeon District Court Decision 67Ra145 delivered on November 22, 1967

The order of the court below is reversed.

The decision of the first instance (decision of permission of successful bid) shall be revoked.

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

According to Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for Loans in Arrears by Financial Institutions, if a creditor is a financial institution such as the Industrial Bank of Korea, the minimum auction price of real estate to be auction is set at the minimum auction price. However, in this case, the appraiser who is not the applicant for the appraisal of real estate in question is an appraiser who is not the applicant for the appraisal of this case, and the auction is being conducted at the minimum auction price of 2,380,740 won assessed by this person. Thus, the head of such auction court's opinion should be illegal, and it is also erroneous in the court below's decision that there is no unfair fact in this appraisal. Accordingly, the court below's decision should be reversed, and the decision of the court of first instance will be revoked. This decision is consistent with the opinions of the judges involved in this decision.

The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)