[1] Whether a junior person having a right to lease on a deposit basis can assert any defect in the auction procedure while submitting explanatory materials as to a blanket auction after a decision to permit the successful bid was rendered without a separate request for auction or a claim for a blanket auction for real estate independent of land for the purpose of auction (negative)

[2] Whether there is a legitimate ground for appeal against the decision of granting the successful bid price by asserting that appraisal price or successful bid price of the object of auction is low in comparison with the market price (negative)

[3] The case holding that the decision to permit the successful bid which reduces the minimum auction price by 10% at each time of impossibility of bidding in light of all circumstances such as the scale of the object of auction

[1] If an auction procedure is conducted in a state where not only the applicant's separate request for auction but also no assertion or explanation is presented that the auction is subject to a blanket auction against the building and steel tower, etc. which are separate from the land for the auction purpose, a subsequent person having the right to lease on a deposit basis should have held a blanket auction against the building, etc., the person having the right to lease on a deposit basis cannot assert that there is a defect in the determination of the minimum auction price or the collective auction decision in the auction procedure.

[2] The argument that the appraisal price or successful bid price of the object of auction is low in comparison with the market price is merely a dispute over the successful bid price, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for reappeal.

[3] The case holding that since the auction court can determine the degree of reduction of the minimum auction price at its discretion by comparing and comparing the progress of the auction procedure and the understanding of the interested parties, it cannot be deemed that there is no error of law in reducing the minimum auction price by 10% for each bidding failure in light of various circumstances such as the scale of the auction object, its appraised value, and the interests of the interested parties

[1] Articles 633 subparag. 6 and 642 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 615, 633 subparag. 6 and 642 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 631 and 642 of the Civil Procedure Act

[3] Supreme Court Order 94Ma1171 dated August 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2529)

Hong-young et al. (Attorneys Song Man-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju District Court Order 96Ra82 dated September 25, 1996

All reappeals are dismissed. The costs of reappeals are assessed against the Re-Appellants.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. Even if the re-appellant has a hot spring hole and power plant within the land for auction purpose of this case, considering the overall scale of the object of auction of this case and the bid price and other various circumstances indicated in the record such as the number and size of the hot spring hole of this case, the quantity of hot spring water, installation of power equipment, etc., of the claim, it cannot be said that there is a serious defect in the minimum auction price decision or the package auction decision in the auction procedure of this case on the ground that the above hot spring hole and its power

Although the reasoning of the order of the court below is not appropriate, the conclusion of the judgment below to the same purport is justifiable, and the Re-Appellant's assertion disputing this part is without merit.

2. In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below that the restaurant building of this case, golf practice range building and its steel tower, etc. are not attached to the land for auction of this case is just and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of reappeal.

In addition, if the auction procedure was conducted under the circumstances where not only the applicant for auction of the above restaurant building, golf practice range building and its steel tower, which are separate and independent real estate, but also there was no assertion or explanation that the application for auction of this case would be subject to a blanket auction, and the decision to grant the successful bid was made, the re-appellant, who is only the junior mortgagee, cannot claim that there was a defect in the determination of the minimum auction price or the decision to grant a blanket auction of the above restaurant building in the auction procedure of this case.

Furthermore, when the auction court sells several real estate, it can decide whether to sell the real estate in installments at a free price in consideration of the location, form, use relationship, etc. of each real estate, and in light of the overall size of the auction object of this case or the successful bid price, etc., it is difficult to say that there is a serious defect in the determination of the minimum auction price or the comprehensive auction decision in the auction procedure of this case on the ground that the above argument did not en bloc sell the restaurant building, the golf practice range building and its steel tower, etc.

After all, the judgment of the court below did not lack the explanation of its reasoning, but the conclusion of the court below's decision to the same purport is justifiable, and therefore, the Re-Appellant's assertion that argued this part

3. Among the auction objects of this case, the assertion that the Musan Tourist Hotel exceeded 10 billion won even after the various facility costs are exceeded, and in the appraisal of this case, the appraisal of this case did not be assessed, is first raised in the reappeal, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for reappeal.

4. The grounds for re-appellants’ failure to make a lawful notice of the bid date or the bid bid date are asserted in the appellate court for the first time in the reappeals’ re-appeal. Thus, there is an error in the procedure to reduce the minimum auction price or the bid price permission, based on this premise, cannot be a legitimate ground for re-appeal.

5. The assertion that the appraisal price or the successful bid price of the object of the auction of this case is lower than the market price is merely disputing the successful bid price, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for reappeal.

In addition, the auction court can determine the degree of reduction of the minimum auction price at its discretion by comparing and comparing the progress of the auction procedure and understanding of the interested parties, and in light of various circumstances, such as the size of the auction object of this case, its appraised value, and the interests of the interested parties as shown in the record, the auction court of this case reduced the minimum auction price by 10% each time the bidding is impossible, and there is no error as otherwise alleged in the ground for reappeal.

6. Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed, and the costs of reappeals are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)