[1] The purpose of the current status survey under Article 603-2 of the Civil Procedure Act and the provision of the system to keep the specifications of auction articles under Article 617-2

[2] The case holding that the defect in the lease investigation report and the specification of the tender items in the office where the prior tenant's resident registration is omitted is a ground for refusing the successful bid

[1] The purpose of Articles 603-2 and 617-2 of the Civil Procedure Act is to accurately grasp the current status of real estate subject to bidding and publicly announce the current status and relationship of rights to the general public so that those who wish to purchase may easily obtain necessary information on the objects subject to bidding, thereby preventing unexpected damages.

[2] The case holding that the defect in the lease investigation report and the specification of bidding items in the office of the month when the prior tenant's resident registration is omitted is a ground for refusing the successful bid

[1] Articles 603-2 and 617-2 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 603-2, 617-2, and 633 subparag. 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 150 of the Rules of Civil Procedure

[1] Supreme Court Order 91Ma680 dated January 30, 1992 (Gong1992, 1263) 93Ma1601 dated January 15, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 785) / [2] Supreme Court Order 90Ma18 dated February 27, 1991 (Gong191, 1154) 91Ma608 dated December 27, 1991 (Gong192, 759)

Re-appellant

Seoul District Court Order 95Ra1205 dated September 4, 1995

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

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, since the lease investigation report of the head of the office of the above non-party 1 was omitted in the above non-party 1 even though the non-party 1's resident registration was prior to the location of the real estate subject to the bidding, and the list of the bid items also includes the non-party 1's resident registration. Thus, the decision to grant the contract of this case based on the above lease investigation report and the tender specifications should be cancelled, it is sufficient if the head of the office ordered the bidding court to investigate the current status of lease, etc. of the real estate, and it is sufficient to report the fact that the head of the office of the above bid has the real estate, such as the lease, which is actually existing in the real estate, and it is possible for the third party to use the lease to oppose the third party by being awarded the bid, and the court of the above 10th of the first instance to find out the rent deposit from the bid report of this case 90th of the above 10th of the first instance court.

2. Article 603-2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the bidding court shall order a month officer to investigate the current status of real estate, possession relation, rent or deposit amount, and other current status, and shall grant the month officer a certain authority necessary therefor. Article 617-2 of the same Act provides that the bidding court shall prepare and keep a copy of the tender documentation stating the indication of real estate, the possessor and the title of possession, the period of possession, the statement of a person related to rent or deposit, etc. and make it available to the general public for inspection by accurately ascertaining the current status and legal relationship of the real estate subject to bidding so that the applicant can easily obtain information necessary for the bid and prevent unexpected damages. Accordingly, Article 150 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall keep a copy of the current status report and the tender documentation together with a copy of the tender documentation so that the general public can peruse (see Supreme Court Order 195Ma16, Jan. 16, 194).

In light of the records, although it is apparent that the above non-party 1 was a resident registration report as of August 6, 1991, which was the date prior to the priority collective security (the prior to the priority collective security (the prior to the priority collective security) of Korea-U.S. bank on the real estate in this case, the above non-party 1 stated that the resident registration date was properly examined the lease of the above non-party 2, while the above non-party 1 (the title is the non-party 3)'s transfer report is confirmed at the US or the Dong office with respect to the lease of the above non-party 1 (the title is the non-party 3), it cannot be said that the report on the present status of the KOB properly reflected the substance of the relationship of the lease, and it is evident that there is any defect in the preparation of the tender report.

In addition, the lease of the above non-party 1 appears to have opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the deposit amount is equal to 29,300,000 won of the successful bid price of this case, and the status survey of the office of delivery is conducted by his duties and authority, and the resident registration of the possessor belongs to the contents that can easily be easily understood by the office of the office of the office, and the result of such survey is considerably trusted by the general public. In light of the fact that the defect in the preparation of the tender specification was affected by the intention of the re-appellant who is the successful bidder and the decision of the bid price, it is reasonable to deem that the defect in the preparation of the tender specification was affected by the intention of the re-appellant who is the successful bidder and the decision of bid price

3. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the provisions of subparagraph 6 of Article 633, Article 603-2, and Article 617-2 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the court below's decision to grant the award of the first instance is affirmed in other opinions. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)