(a) Whether farmland in an urban planning zone can be permitted to be knocked without certification of sale and purchase of farmland (affirmative);

(b) Whether only one building, which is subject to auction, is registered as one building, and two unregistered warehouses exist, and only three buildings among the annex buildings are removed separately (negative)

(a) Where the land category is farmland, even within an urban planning zone, a successful bid may be permitted without certification of sale and purchase of farmland;

B. One building should be the object of the successful bid, and part of the building can not be the object of the successful bid separately, and it is registered as one house, warehouse, and 4 affiliated building, which is the object of the auction in this case, and two unregistered warehouses are registered as one house, warehouse, and 4 affiliated building, and the auction court separately removed 3 affiliated buildings except one house from the original house, warehouse, and annexed building among the registered buildings, and the auction court is unlawful because it violates the principle of the right of the right of the property, and if the two unregistered warehouse are attached to the above registered building, it is illegal for the same reason, and there is no separate building, and there is no application for the auction, and if there is no separate building, the auction is permitted.

(a) Article 87(1) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, Articles 98, 99 of the Civil Act, Articles 728 and 603 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Order 73Ma283 dated May 31, 1973 (No. 21 ② 41). Supreme Court Order 86Ma30 dated February 17, 1986 (Gong1986,789)

[Judgment of the court below] The plaintiff-appellant 1 et al.

Suwon District Court Order 90Ra5 dated July 10, 1990

Of the order of the court below, the part of dismissing an appeal against the decision of permission of successful bidder's successful bidder's bid for the same gambling room shall be reversed.

The above reversed part of the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The re-appellant's remaining reappeals are dismissed.

The assertion that the appraised value of an object is low in comparison with the market price in the auction procedure of real estate cannot be a ground to view the decision of the successful bid unless there is a detailed statement of fact that there is an illegality in the evaluation process, and if the land category is farmland located in the planning zone, the successful bid can be permitted without the certificate of sale and purchase of farmland, and the argument that the notice of the auction date is illegal is

Therefore, the appeal against the decision of the successful bidder's decision on the successful bidder's Kim Yong-ro, the stuffed land, and the same style is without merit.

The following one building should be the object of the successful bid, and a part of the building can not be the object of the successful bid separately (see Supreme Court Order 73Ma283, May 3, 1973). According to the records, the building which became the object of auction in this case shall be the object of the successful bid, and it shall be deemed that the 28th house and the 28th house building building shall be the object of the appraisal and the 28th house building shall be the object of the appraisal and the 28th house building shall be the object of the appraisal and the 28th house building shall be the object of the appraisal and the 28th house building shall be the object of the appraisal and the 28th house building shall be the object of the appraisal and the 28th house building shall be the 16th house building shall be the object of the appraisal and 16th house house shall be the object of the 16th house appraisal and the 2th house appraisal and 2th house appraisal and 10th house of the 12th house construction and the 2th house.

Therefore, the reappeal on this part is justified and 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 Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)