[1] The case where a collective auction should be decided on two or more real estate for the purpose of auction

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

[3] The purpose to investigate the current status of real estate and prepare specifications of bidding items in the auction procedure

[4] The purport of Article 617(2) of the former Civil Procedure Act that requires the interested parties to notify the bidding date and the bid award date

[5] The purport of Article 634 of the former Civil Procedure Act prohibiting an objection from stating an objection on the grounds of other interested parties’ rights

[6] The meaning of "when the highest bidder has no ability or qualification to purchase the real estate" under Article 633 subparagraph 2 of the former Civil Procedure Act

[1] In the event there are two or more real estate for the purpose of auction, whether to hold a blanket auction or not shall be determined by the free sale by the court of execution. However, in a case where the land and the building on the land are sold at the same time, if the land and the building on the land constitute a single business facility, if the land and the building are sold at two or more parcels of land and only a part of the land are sold by a divisional auction, it is reasonable to hold a blanket auction rather than to hold a divided auction, such as the case where the remaining land are sold at the time of the sale of the parcels of land and the price of the land will be significantly lowered due to the blind land, etc., unless there are any special reasons to believe that it is unfair to hold that it would increase the utility of the whole objects of auction and the price of the land will be remarkably high, it is reasonable to hold a blanket auction in the manner of a

[2] Articles 635(2) and 633 subparag. 6 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) provide that a successful bid shall not be granted if 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 procedures prescribed by the Act, or the decision based on it is illegal due to the reason for illegality in the qualification or evaluation method of an appraiser. The mere reason for the lack of the appraised value of an appraiser and the minimum auction price determined by the appraisal cannot be a ground for objection. However, if the appraised value calculated by an appraisal considerably violates the general standards of appraisal or it is deemed that there is a significant defect in the determination of the minimum auction price based on social norms, such reason alone shall be deemed that there is a serious

[3] It is intended to accurately grasp the current status of real estate subject to bidding and to publicly announce the current status and relationship of the real estate subject to bid so that the applicant for bid can easily obtain necessary information on the bid subject and prevent unexpected damages.

[4] The purport of the provision that the interested parties in the bidding procedure shall be notified of the bidding date and the bid date. The interested parties in the bidding procedure may take necessary measures to prevent excessive sale of target real estate on the bidding date and give them an opportunity to participate in the bidding procedure by individually giving notice of such date, taking into account that it is not adequate to give notice of the bidding date and the bid date, given that the interested parties in the bidding procedure have a direct interest in the sale of target real estate on their own, except for the debtor, and that they have an interest in the right to attend the bidding date and to state opinions.

[5] The grounds for an objection under each subparagraph of Article 633 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) are divided into cases of violation of the public interest regulations unrelated to the rights of an individual and violation of the private interest regulations related to the rights of an individual. In the case of violation of the public interest regulations, even if there is no objection, the court has to make a decision on the rejection of a successful bid by taking into account the adjudication ex officio. Therefore, the restriction on an objection is not meaningful, and in the case of violation of the private interest regulations, the assertion of an objection with illegality in the rights of other interested parties as to the right of other interested parties is prohibited from stating an objection on the grounds of other interested parties

[6] Article 633 subparagraph 2 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) provides that "when the highest bidder has no ability or ability to purchase the real estate," the term "when the highest bidder does not have capacity to purchase the real estate, such as a minor, an incompetent or a quasi-incompetent," means the case where the highest bidder has no capacity to perform a legal act independently, such as a minor, an incompetent or a quasi-incompetent, and "when the person has no capacity to purchase the real estate" means the case where the government office is not entitled to acquire the real estate, or where the government office is required to obtain the real estate, or where it is intended to acquire the real estate, the term "when

[1] Article 615-2 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) (see Article 98 of the current Civil Execution Act) / [2] Article 615 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) (see Article 97 (1) of the current Civil Execution Act), Article 633 subparagraph 6 of Article 635 (see Article 121 subparagraph 5 of the current Civil Execution Act), Article 123 (2) of the current Civil Execution Act (see Article 123 (2) of the current Civil Execution Act) / [3] Article 603-2 (see Article 85 of the current Civil Execution Act) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 202) / [4] Article 266 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 266166 of the current Civil Procedure Act) / [see Article 26666 of the former Civil Procedure Act)

[1] Supreme Court Order 64Ma444 dated June 24, 1964 / [2] Supreme Court Order 95Ma453 dated July 12, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2931), Supreme Court Order 200Ma1143 dated June 23, 200 (Gong200Ha, 182) / [3] Supreme Court Order 95Ma197 dated November 22, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 5199), Supreme Court Order 9Ma2696 dated September 6, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2162), Supreme Court Order 209Ma9490 dated November 15, 199 (Gong2990Sang, 2990Sang, 2990Sang, 29940 dated 29940 decided Nov. 29, 2094)

Re-appellant

Suwon District Court Order 2003Ra205 dated December 31, 2003

The reappeal is dismissed.

1. As to the assertion of defects in the auction decision

Article 615-2 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) provides that "the court may determine a blanket auction when it deems it reasonable to make a blanket auction to the same person in consideration of the location, form, use of several real estate, etc." In this case, the issue of whether a blanket auction is to be made shall be decided at the discretion of the auction court (see Supreme Court Order 64Ma444, Jun. 24, 1964, etc.).

Examining the record in light of the above legal principles, although each real estate listed in the annexed list of the order of the court below, which is real estate subject to auction of this case, is used as a wedding hall and ancillary facilities by forming a single waking, it is difficult to view that the real estate can be sold at a high price which must be held in light of its location, form, use relationship, etc., and is recognized as favorable to society and economy. In the same purport, the court below's decision that held that the measures of the court of the first instance which made the decision to grant the successful bid of this case were not erroneous after dividing the real estate listed in the annexed list 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter "real estate for bidding of this case") into other real estate and conducting the auction procedure, is correct, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as to the requirements for the package

On the other hand, it is reasonable to hold a blanket auction in the case where there are two or more real estate for the purpose of auction, and whether to hold a blanket auction or not, at the discretion of the court of execution. However, in the case where the land and buildings are sold at the same time, the land and buildings constitute a single business facility, if the land and buildings are sold at two or more parcels of land and only a part of the land is sold through a divided auction, it cannot be said that a blanket auction is conducted in a manner of a blanket auction unless there are special grounds to recognize that it is unfair to hold that it is reasonable to hold a blanket auction to increase the utility of the goods concerned and the value of the real estate will be substantially high. In this case, it is reasonable to hold a partial auction beyond the scope of the discretion of the court of execution, and thus, it is unlawful to hold that the execution court should observe the location, form, use relation, etc. of the real estate for the purpose of auction objectively and economically within such limit so that it is reasonable to hold a blanket auction in violation of Article 15(1)2 of the former Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the assertion of defects in the determination of the minimum auction price

Article 635(2) and Article 633 subparag. 6 of the former Civil Procedure Act provide that no successful bid shall be permitted if there is a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction price. If there is a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction price, there must be circumstances such as in violation of the procedures prescribed by the Act or in violation of the qualification or evaluation method of an appraiser, and the reason that the appraisal price of an appraiser and the minimum auction price determined by the appraisal are extremely low is not a ground for objection. However, if the appraisal price calculated by appraisal considerably violates the general standards of appraisal or it is deemed that there is a significant defect in the determination of the minimum auction price (see Supreme Court Order 95Ma453, Jul. 12, 1995, etc.).

After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below did not specify wholesale price inflation in the appraisal report on the land listed in the annexed list 1 and 2 of the order of the court below. However, since an appraiser selected a reference land similar to the above land and assessed the above land by integrating and referring to the land price rate from the basic date to the price, wholesale price inflation rate, market price and urban planning relations formed in the same region and the degree of restrictions under the public law, etc. based on the officially announced land price, it is difficult to view that the appraisal of the above land is considerably contrary to the general standards of appraisal, or is considerably unfair under social norms, just because the appraiser did not explicitly apply wholesale price inflation, and there is no reason to believe that the appraisal of the above building could not be calculated, or that the appraisal of the building listed in the annexed list 3 of the order of the court below was inappropriate due to the degree of construction, number of years, management conditions, etc., and thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the minimum auction price, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the appraisal price.

3. As to the assertion of defects in the preparation of a tender documentation

In the auction procedure, the current status of the real estate subject to the bid and the preparation of a detailed statement of the bid items are accurately identified, and by publicly announcing the current status and relationship of rights, to prevent the applicant from causing unexpected damages by allowing information on the bid items to be easily obtained (see Supreme Court Order 95Ma1197 delivered on Nov. 22, 1995).

The court below held that there is no error of law in the decision of permission for the successful bid of this case, since it is difficult to see that this circumstance did not cause unexpected damages to the purchaser of this case's real estate, or affected the formation of successful bid price, even if it did not contain any error of law in the decision of permission for the successful bid of this case, considering the records in light of the above legal principles, it is proper to find such fact-finding and decision of the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the preparation and public announcement of the tender specification and public announcement, since the real estate for the bid of this case was divided into real estate as stated in the list 6,7 of the order of the court below, and since the real estate for the bid of this case was awarded to a different person as a successful bid by dividing it into real estate as stated in the list 6, and 6, and 7 of the list of the order of the court below.

4. As to the assertion of defects in the bidding date and the notice of the award date

The court below determined that the first instance court served the original copy of the decision on commencement of auction of this case to the owner of the real estate for bidding of this case and to the non-party 1 who is the debtor, on the registry address, but it was impossible to serve the original copy of the decision on commencement of auction of this case on the registry, it is legitimate to satisfy the requirements of service by public notice and serve the original copy of the decision on commencement of auction of this case to the non-party 1 who requested the auction of this case on the registry after the non-party 1 without permission from his domicile due to the procedure such as the order of correction of address on the applicant for auction, etc., and served the original copy of the decision on commencement of auction of this case on the non-party 1 of the debtor. In light of the records, it is reasonable to find and determine such facts of the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles

Meanwhile, the purport of Article 633 of the former Civil Procedure Act stipulating that interested parties in the bidding procedure shall be notified of the bidding date and the bid date. The interested parties in the bidding procedure may take necessary measures to prevent excessive sale of target real estate on the bidding date, and there is a direct interest in the sale of target real estate on the bidding date, except for the debtor, and there is an interest in the right to attend the bidding date and to state opinions. Since it is a person who has the right to state opinion, it is not sufficient to notify the bidding date and the bidding date only, it is possible to individually give an opportunity to participate in the bidding procedure by giving notice of such date (see Supreme Court Order 9Ma5256, Nov. 15, 199). The grounds for objection under each subparagraph of Article 633 of the former Civil Procedure Act are divided into cases where the grounds for objection are contrary to the public interest provisions unrelated to the rights of interested parties and where the court does not allow the interested parties to take account of the public interest provisions of Article 73 of the former Civil Procedure Act, and thus, it is not meaningful for other interested parties to assert the right to raise an excessive objection.

5. As to the assertion of defect in the qualification of the successful bidder

Article 633 subparagraph 2 of the former Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the highest bidder has no ability or ability to purchase the real estate," the term "when the highest bidder has no capacity to purchase the real estate" means the case where the person has no capacity to perform a legal act independently, such as a minor, an incompetent or a quasi-incompetent, and "when the person has no capacity to purchase the real estate" means the case where the person is not eligible to acquire the real estate, or where the person intends to acquire the real estate, under the provisions of the Act, is to obtain the certification or authorization from the government agency. Thus, the term "when the highest bidder

In light of the records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the highest bidder, non-party 2, who is the highest bidder, has no ability or qualification to purchase the real estate for the purpose of the bid of this case, and there is no evidence to support that the non-party 3, who made the bid on behalf of the highest bidder non-party 2, either interferes with the proper execution of the auction or commits the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. concerning the auction. In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the re-appellant's assertion that the decision of permission for the bid of this case should be revoked due to defects in the qualification of the successful bidder

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

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)