In a case where a bid price declaration was filed on the next date after no declaration of bid price was filed due to a lack of a bid price declaration at a multiple auction date, whether the public notice of the previous auction date constitutes a ground for denial of sale under Article 121 subparag. 7 of the Civil Execution Act for violating the provisions of the Act, even though there was no violation of the Act and the public notice of

Articles 104(1), 106, and 121 subparag. 7 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 56 of the Civil Execution Rule

[Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 7401Ha, 2001Ha, 2154)

Re-appellant

Daejeon District Court Order 2008Ra42, 43, 44, 45 dated March 4, 2008

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

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding. According to Article 106 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 56 of the Civil Execution Rule, the public notice of the sale date shall be made not later than two weeks prior to the sale date. The public notice shall contain the indication of the real estate, the purpose of selling it by compulsory execution, the sale method thereof, the matters concerning the possessor of the real estate, the time and place of the sale date, the purport that any person holding rights to the real estate who is not required to enter in the register shall report his claims, the interested parties may attend the sale date, and the purport that the interested parties may attend the sale date. In addition, since the order of the court of execution includes the contents that the sale date continues only when the sale date is closed without reporting the purchase price to be permitted at the preceding sale date, the continuation of the sale date is premised on the termination of the sale date before the sale date, and thus the public notice of the sale date cannot be deemed to have been cured in the procedure after the second sale date and the sale date shall be deemed to constitute a serious violation of the auction procedure.

However, such determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The court shall, when it recognizes that there exists a remaining portion of the bid price with the minimum sale price under Article 102(1) and the execution creditor has made an application for the sale under Article 102(2) and provided sufficient guarantee ex officio, determine the date of sale and the date of decision of sale and publicly notify it in such a manner as prescribed by the Supreme Court Regulations (Article 104(1) of the Civil Execution Act). Even when the notice of sale date violates the provisions of Acts, there may be cases where the sale is to be refused because it falls under the “when there is a grave fault in the auction procedure” under Article 121 subparag. 7 of the Civil Execution Act. However, the term “sale date” in this context refers to the relevant sale date on which permission for sale or a declaration of purchase price subject to non-permission has been made, and where a declaration of sale price has been made only after the subsequent date without filing a bid price on several occasions, it shall not be deemed that the notice of the sale date at issue was in violation of the provisions of Article 121 subparag. 7 of the Civil Execution Act (hereinafter “Act”).

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, in this case, the court of execution orders the first sale date on October 15, 2007; the second sale date on November 19, 2007; the third sale date on December 24, 2007; the fourth sale date on January 28, 2008; and the first, third, and fourth sale date on January 28, 2008; and the first, third, and fourth sale date on the sale date after the public notice of the sale date was made. However, the second sale date was not publicly notified; the second sale date was not notified; the second sale date was part of the fourth sale date and became the highest bidder; the second sale date was not notified on the second sale date; even if the execution court violated the provisions of Article 121 subparagraph 7 of the Act, the second sale date was not notified on the sale date and the second sale date was not notified on the sale date at the first and third sale date, and thus, the second sale date was not notified on the sale date.

On the contrary, the court below's decision that the sale should not be permitted pursuant to Article 121 subparagraph 7 of the Act even in a case where a declaration of bid price to be permitted was filed at the fourth sale date thereafter, if the second sale date is not publicly announced, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles under Article 121 subparagraph 7 of the Act, and the ground of reappeal pointing this out has merit.

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 Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)