Repayment of mortgaged debt after the order of the court below and permission of auction

The ground of appeal that the creditor paid the mortgaged debt and auction expenses after the order of the court below's dismissal of appeal against the decision of permission of auction is a separate issue, and the ground of appeal against the decision of commencement of auction made to the court of auction shall not be a legitimate ground of reappeal against the court of final appeal which is a law

Article 28 of the Auction Act

Re-appellant

Busan District Court Order 66Ra73 dated April 17, 1966

The reappeal is dismissed.

No. 1 of the grounds for re-appeal

In this case where the auction court proceeds an auction through legitimate procedures, the reason why the appraised price or the successful bid price was reduced compared to the market price cannot be a legitimate ground for reappeal against the decision to grant the successful bid; therefore, the argument is without merit;

No. 2 of the grounds for re-appeal

The reason behind the order of the court below is that the creditor has repaid the secured debt and auction expenses, which is the subsequent order of May 14, 1966, and that the creditor has repaid the auction expenses, and the reason is not a legitimate re-appeal against the principal court which is a legal judge. (The reason for the decision of the commencement of auction to the court of auction

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro