Finality and quasi-deliberation of the decision of permission for auction;

A person who is entitled to file a petition for quasi-examination of the final and conclusive decision of permission of adjudication is an interested party to the decision of permission of adjudication, and thus, a person who filed a petition for quasi-examination after the decision of permission of adjudication is rendered after acquiring a right to collateral security on a ship in progress of the auction procedure and the decision of permission of adjudication of adjudication cannot be an interested party who is entitled to file

Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 431 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 641 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 1(2) of the Auction Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Civil History District Court Decision 65Ra641 delivered on December 29, 1965

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined as to the first ground of reappeal (23 February 17, 1966) and second ground of reappeal (196.23).

However, according to Article 431 of the Civil Procedure Act, the defect in the auction procedure is the difference when the successful bidder has acquired the ownership in full, but the defect is the same as that of the second auction procedure. But according to Article 422 (1) of the same Act, if there is a reason stated in Article 422 (1) of the same Act when the order has been issued, a new trial may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of Articles 422 through 430 of the final judgment. According to Article 1 (2) of the Auction Act, the provisions of Article 641 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the auction case such as this case, even if the decision to permit the auction becomes final and conclusive, if there is a ground for new trial under Article 422 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is the second auction procedure's 2nd auction procedure's 3rd auction procedure's 2nd auction procedure's 2nd auction procedure's 3th auction procedure's 2nd auction procedure's 2nd auction procedure's 2nd auction application.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 (A) are examined.

According to Article 422 (1) 11 of the Civil Procedure Act, when a lawsuit was filed by the parties having knowledge of the other party's domicile or residence, the other party may file a lawsuit for retrial against the final and conclusive judgment, because the other party is not aware of the other party's domicile or residence, or his/her domicile or residence is unknown, or his/her domicile or residence is false. The other party may file a lawsuit for retrial even after the final and conclusive judgment was rendered. Thus, even if the other party did not attend the address of the other party on the registry, it is not impossible to file a lawsuit for retrial because the other party did not attend the address of the other party on the registry. In this case, it cannot be said that the quasi-deliberation claim for retrial was unlawful because the applicant did not attend the registry, and thus, it cannot be said that the other party erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the Auction Act, such as the theory of lawsuit in the court below, and the arguments are groundless.

The same grounds of appeal (additional) are examined as to subparagraph 2 (b)(c) of the same appeal.

According to the records, although the court of auction and the court of appeal have fully known the fact that the applicant's address was 2 to 2-2 of Seongbuk-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul in executing the mortgage of this case, the court of auction and the court of appeal, based on each evidence duly proved by the court of appeal, could recognize that the address was conducted by making a false organization 105-2, Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, 105-2, and the record does not contain any error in the process of confirming the above facts. Thus, the court of appeal that revoked the decision of approval of the successful bid of this case on the premise of the fact that there was no error of law in the process of confirming the above facts. Thus, it cannot be said that the court of the court of appeal that revoked the decision of approval of the successful bid of this case on the premise of

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

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court