Where the auction procedure continues without notifying the interested parties of the date of auction, whether the decision on permission for auction is appropriate;

According to Article 30 (2) of the Auction Act, the date of auction shall be notified to the interested parties, and according to Article 633 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis by Article 33 of the same Act, the auction procedure shall not continue without notification to the interested parties, and in cases where the auction procedure continues without disregarding the above interested parties, the reason for objection against the permission of auction as well as an appeal against the decision of permission of auction is the reason for appeal.

Articles 30(2) and 33 of the Auction Act; Article 633 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Busan District Court Order 84Ra29 Dated March 30, 1984

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

1. The grounds for re-appeal of rights are examined;

The summary of the grounds for reappeal is that the order of the court below is erroneous in the incomplete hearing or in the violation of the rules of evidence in judging the legitimacy of the notice of auction date to the re-appellant who is an interested party in the auction procedure of this case. However, this ground does not fall under any of the grounds under Article 11 (1) of the Act applied mutatis mutandis by Article 13 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion,

2. The grounds for reappeal of permission are examined;

According to Article 30(2) of the Auction Act, the date of auction shall be notified to the interested parties of the auction procedure, and according to Article 633(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis by Article 33 of the same Act, the execution of the auction procedure shall not continue without notification to the interested parties, and if the auction procedure continues without disregarding it, it shall be a ground for objection to the permission of auction, as well as a ground for appeal against the decision of permission of auction.

According to the letter of report on delivery (75 pages) on the first auction date (10:00 on December 5, 1983) bound in the record, the first auction date notice to the re-appellant, an interested party in the auction procedure of this case, could have been served on the re-appellant's mother. However, according to the family resident registration card (100 pages) submitted by the re-appellant, the re-appellant's mother was not registered in the reason for appeal, and it is obvious that the court below clearly explained this point as the reason for appeal. Thus, the court below rejected the first auction date, even if the first auction date was not legally served on the second auction date and did not reduce the minimum auction price on the second auction date, and the second auction date did not lawfully notify the second auction date and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division, which is the court below, for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)