[1] The purport of allowing the preparation of a specification of goods for sale at an auction procedure

[2] The case holding that the court of execution's failure to keep a copy of the list of the goods to be sold at least one week prior to the date of sale or to keep a copy of the list of goods to be sold at significant defects, but proceed with the sale procedure without changing the date of sale in spite of correction at least five days prior to the date of sale, without notifying the general purchaser of the corrected contents, constitutes a serious procedural violation that is likely to infringe the interests of the interested parties or undermine the fairness of the sale procedure

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Articles 105, 121 subparag. 7, and 123 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 55 of the Civil Execution Rule, Article 9(2) and (3) of the Guidelines for Processing of Auction Procedure for Real Estate, etc. (Re-Koreans 2004-3)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Ma94 Decided November 9, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 65) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da913 Decided January 31, 2008 (Gong2009Da40790 Decided June 24, 2010) (Gong2010Ha, 1430)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Jung-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Eastern District Court Order 2010Ra80 dated June 25, 2010

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. Article 105(2) of the Civil Execution Act provides that "a court shall keep a copy of the specifications of goods to be sold, the current status survey report, and the assessment report in a court so that anyone can see them." Article 55 of the Civil Execution Rule provides that "a copy of the specifications of goods to be sold, the current status survey report, and the assessment report shall be kept in the court at least one week prior to the date of sale (the date of commencement of the bidding period in cases where they are conducted through the method of key bidding): Provided, That if deemed appropriate, the court may publicly announce the specifications of goods to be sold, the current status survey report, and the descriptions of

The purpose of Article 9(3) of the Guidelines for the Auction Procedure of Real Estate, etc. (the 2004Ma94, Nov. 9, 2004, etc.) is to prevent anyone who wants to purchase from causing unexpected damages by making it possible for him/her to easily obtain information necessary for the goods subject to bidding by accurately ascertaining the current status of the real estate subject to bidding and disclosing legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2004Ma94, Nov. 9, 2004). If a correction or modification is made in the description of the goods subject to auction, there is a risk of disadvantage to interested parties. As such, Article 9(3) of the "Guidelines for the Auction Procedure of Real Estate, etc. (the 2004-3)" provides that if a detailed statement of the goods subject to auction is corrected or modified one week prior to the date of sale and proceeds from the auction, an execution officer shall notify the corrected or modified details prior to the date of sale (in cases of a fixed bid, a notice by a junior officer, etc.).

2. According to the records, although the report of the current status of the execution officer of this case entered the purport that there is no person who has completed the move-in report on the apartment of this case in the voluntary auction procedure of this case, the execution court, upon the report of the right by the person other than lessee, etc. after the date of the first bidding of this case ( September 28, 2009), prepared the sale articles statement on September 11, 2009, the date of the first bidding of this case (the date of February 14, 2006), "2.5 million won" in the deposit column, and "the date of January 5, 2009" in the highest priority order column, "the date of sale" was stated as the "mortgage 17, 2005, 200, 300, 3000, 300, 200, 300, 200, 30,0000, 30,000).

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there are serious defects in the specification of goods sold prior to the correction as above, stating that the right of lease of the other party against whom the opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing opposing the ex officio sale under Articles 123 and 12121 subparag.

Nevertheless, the court below held that it is reasonable to view that the Re-Appellant was participating in the auction procedure by ascertaining the specifications of the goods sold as stated above, since it was clearly revealed that a person other than the lessee is a lessee who has met the requirements for setting up the highest priority right than the date of establishment of the highest priority right to collateral security, since the latter cannot be deemed to have a serious defect in the specifications of the goods sold, since the Re-Appellant directly participated in the auction procedure. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for refusing the sale due to a significant defect in the auction procedure, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)