The case where the indication of real estate, which is the contents of the public notice of auction date, is illegal;

On the registry, 408 No. 408, which is the object of auction, is already the site, and 102 of which is the land owned by the owner due to the substitution, is only 306 square meters, the public notice of the auction date is unlawful in publicly announcing only the ordinary number on the registry in making the public notice of the auction date, and without indicating the horizontal number and location of 102 of the substitute land.

Article 618 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 65Ra208 decided May 14, 1966

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The Re-Appellant is not a appellant on the decision of approval of the successful bid, and the court below did not deliver the decision to the Re-Appellant. There is no error in the decision of approval of the successful bid.

The grounds of reappeal are examined as 2 points.

The original decision is a reason to revoke the decision of approval of a successful bid. As the appraiser ordered by the auction court, 408 on the registry among the subject matter of the auction at issue, and 102 on the registry among the subject matter of the auction at issue, the land actually owned by the owner after the substitution of 306 square meters is not only 306 square meters, so even though the above 306 square meters was appraised as a site, the auction court has publicly announced the auction date by stating the above 408 square meters on the land at issue, as well as the whole 408 square meters at the time of the decision of approval of a successful bid. However, if the land at 102 square meters was substituted as above, it is insufficient to publicly announce only the ordinary number on the registry in order to inform the interested parties of the actual land, as well as to let interested parties wish to purchase the substitute land by indicating the horizontal number and its location on the registry, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the public notice of the auction date was unlawful by the record.

There is no reason for this issue.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman