(a) Objection against the decision on commencing auction and decision on permitting a successful bid;

(b) Binding force of the judgment remanded by the Supreme Court to the court below

1. Although an objection against the ruling to commence auction was filed, but the auction was conducted because the suspension of execution corresponding to Article 484(2) of the Civil Procedure Act was not a provisional disposition, and the decision to permit auction became final and conclusive, and the successful bidder paid the successful bid price, the successful bidder legally acquires the ownership of the property at the auction. Thus, even if an immediate appeal was filed against the ruling to dismiss the objection against the ruling to commence auction by the auction court, the ruling to commence auction may not

2. In a case where the original court, upon receiving a return for reversal, is bound only to the judgment on the factual and legal proceedings on the ground of reversal, and as a result of the examination, the decision is rendered with respect to matters other than those on the ground of reversal, the original court does not err by failing to make a decision on the grounds of reversal.

Article 28 of the Auction Act, Article 18 of the Court Organization Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 63Ma152 Decided May 20, 1964

Re-appellant

Gwangju District Court Order 79Ra28 Dated June 23, 1979

The reappeal is dismissed.

The Re-Appellant's grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below decided that the re-appellant raised an objection against the order to commence the original auction, but the execution of the auction procedure was not suspended, and the decision to permit the auction has become final and conclusive around June 1978 and the successful bidder paid the successful bid price in full, so the successful bidder finally acquired the ownership of the real estate at the present auction. Therefore, since the decision to commence the auction at the present auction cannot be revoked, the appellant's claim secured by the right to collateral at the present auction at the present auction at the present auction at the present auction was fully repaid and extinguished on June 12, 1976 prior to the decision to commence the auction at the present auction at the present auction at the present auction, the appeal at this case is groundless without

The second-appellant's objection against the ruling of commencement of auction and immediate appeal against the ruling of the court of auction upon the request are not effective. However, in case where there exists an objection against the ruling of commencement of auction, the auction court can only suspend the execution by issuing an order corresponding to Article 484 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act (see Article 28 of the Auction Act, Article 64Ma935, Jan. 25, 1965, and Article 71Ma422, Jun. 30, 1971), and the second-appellant's objection against the ruling of commencement of auction, although the court did not take a disposition of suspension of execution corresponding to Article 484 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the second-appellant's immediate appeal against the ruling of commencement of auction has no effect of suspending the execution, and as long as the successful bidder paid the successful bid price, the court below's decision of rejection cannot be reversed for reasons other than reversal or reversal of the above legal principles as to the ruling of commencement of auction on the ground that it did not have any other legal reasons for reversal or reversal.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)