With respect to the land which is the object of auction, it is impossible to investigate the public imposts and amount, and the public notice of the auction date following the investigation and report of the receipt of the premium cannot be deemed to contain the legal requirements, and thus the permission of auction based on this cannot be deemed to be unlawful.

With respect to the land which is the object of auction, since the collection and delivery cannot investigate the public imposts and amount thereof, the public notice on the auction date following the investigation and report shall not be deemed to have stated the statutory requirements.

Article 602 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 618 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Gwangju District Court Decision 69Ra49 delivered on October 27, 1969

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.

As to the ground of re-appellant No. 1

According to the records, in applying for auction, the creditor attached documents to prove the public nature and amount of the land which is the object of auction under Article 602 (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act in applying for auction. According to these evidentiary documents, not only the building that is the object of auction under Article 602 (3) but also the building that is the object of auction under Article 602 (3) of the Gwangju District Court, and the public nature and amount of the land and buildings were 7,045 won in total when investigating and reporting the public nature and amount of the land which is not the object of auction under the above provision, and the auction court announced the date of auction, it is clear that the total amount of the land and buildings was 7,045 won in public interest.

However, according to Article 602 (2) (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, land which is an object of auction shall be collected.

A. Despite the fact that it is impossible to investigate the public amount, it is inconsistent with the above provisions of the Civil Procedure Act that the public notice was entered in the public amount of the land and building in the public notice of the auction date in accordance with the investigation report at the office of 7,045 won as well as the main building and the land of this case. Thus, the above public notice cannot be deemed to have entered the requirements stipulated in Article 618 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, although the permission of the auction cannot be deemed to be legitimate, it shall be deemed to be legitimate because the original decision is excessive to Article 602 (2) (3) of the above Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the reappeal of this issue is well-founded, and the original decision shall not be reversed without requiring any judgment on other issues.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges under Article 413(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet