(a) The case reversing the order of the court below that dismissed the petition of appeal on the grounds that the certificate of guarantee provision was not attached, even though the debtor or owner was an interested person;

B. Whether a claim irrelevant to the dismissal of the appeal may be a ground for reappeal, where the appeal is dismissed due to the absence of a security deposit.

(a) The case reversing the order of the court below which rejected the written appeal on the ground that the document of guarantee provision was not accompanied by a document of guarantee provision under Article 642 (4) of the Civil Procedure Act in filing an immediate appeal against the decision of permission for successful tender because the person who filed a report of right prior to the issuance of the successful bid because the decision of permission for successful tender was not an obligor or an owner is not a debtor or owner, and thus, the document

B. In a case where the appeal is dismissed on the ground that a security deposit under Article 642(4) of the Civil Procedure Act is not made, the appeal shall not be made on the ground of reappeal that there is an error in the bidding procedure by the bidding court, etc.

Articles 642(4) and 642(5) of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Order 92Ma58 dated March 6, 1992 (Gong1992, 1268)

Appellant 1 et al.

Seoul District Court Order 12428 Dated June 24, 1994

Of the judgment of the court below, the part against the Re-Appellant 1 is reversed, and the re-appellant 2 is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. The court below rejected the Re-Appellant's appeal on the ground that the Re-Appellant did not attach to the petition a document attesting that the Re-Appellant deposited cash equivalent to 1/10 of the successful bid price as a guarantee or securities recognized by the court when the Re-Appellant filed an appeal against the decision of permission of successful bid price.

2. First, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the re-appellant 1's grounds of re-appellant 1's grounds of re-appellant 1's grounds of re-appellant pointing this out are those who filed a report of right before a decision to grant a successful bid is rendered on the grounds that the mortgage was acquired on each of the real estate subject to bid in this case, and there is no need to attach documents proving that there was a provision of a guarantee under Article 642 (4) of the Civil Procedure Act in filing an immediate appeal against the decision to grant a successful bid because the debtor or owner is not the debtor or owner. However, the court below erred by the dismissal of the appeal

3. Re-appellant 2's ground of reappeal

Of the grounds for reappeal, Article 642(4) of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides that when an obligor or owner files a complaint against the decision of permission for a successful bid, Article 642(4) of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides that the obligor or owner deposits cash equivalent to 1/10 of the successful bid price or securities recognized by the court, is null and void in violation of Article 11 of the Constitution which declares equality in front of the law, and thus, the decision of the court below which rejected the appeal by the re-appellant is unlawful. However, the provision of Article 642(4) of the Civil Procedure Act is not unconstitutional against the right to equality under Article 11 of the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 90Da15, Jul. 6, 1990; Order 84Ma83, Apr. 3, 19

In addition, if the appeal is dismissed on the ground that it does not make a security deposit under Article 642 (4) of the Civil Procedure Act, it is the opinion of the party member that it is not a ground for re-appeal to the rejection of the appeal (the original decision No. 92Ma58, Mar. 6, 1992). The remaining grounds for re-appeal of the above-appellant are all the arguments that are not related to the bidding procedure of the bidding court's rejection of the appeal, and it is not a legitimate ground for re-appeal, since they are all the arguments that

4. Therefore, the part against the Re-Appellant 1 among the judgment below is reversed, and the re-appellant 2 is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)