[1] Whether to open arguments or to examine interested parties in the hearing of an appeal case belongs to the free discretion of the appellate court (affirmative)

[2] Whether an interested party may file an immediate appeal if a successful bid is awarded without notifying the interested party of the bidding date (affirmative), and whether specific or abstract damage to property is a requirement for filing an immediate appeal (negative)

[1] In examining a case of appeal, the appellate court's decision whether to open the pleadings or to examine the interested parties is subject to the discretion of the appellate court. Barring any special circumstance, the appellate court's decision solely based on the written hearing without opening the pleadings or examining the interested parties cannot be deemed unlawful.

[2] If the auction court continues the auction procedure without notifying the interested parties of the bidding date and the bid date and continues the auction procedure, the interested parties shall be deemed to have suffered an infringement of the procedural rights guaranteed by the law, and thus, an immediate appeal may be filed against the decision on the permission for the successful tender. It is not possible for the interested parties to file an immediate appeal only when a specific or abstract property damage has occurred due to the failure to notify the bidding date or the bid date.

[1] Articles 124 and 413 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 607, 617(2), 641(1), and 663(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 80Ma26 dated July 9, 1980 (Gong1980, 13014) / [2] Supreme Court Order 95Ma320 dated April 22, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1936) dated December 5, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 322) Supreme Court Order 99Ma763 dated January 31, 200 (Gong200Sang, 582)

Daeyang Mutual Savings and Finance Company and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon District Court Order 99Ra2928 dated July 1, 2000

All reappeals are dismissed.

The Re-Appellant's grounds of reappeal are also examined.

In examining a case of appeal, the appellate court’s decision whether to open oral arguments or to examine interested parties is subject to the discretion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Order 80Ma26 Decided July 9, 1980), and barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the appellate court has reached a written decision only without opening oral arguments or examining interested parties.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the appellant, a subordinate mortgagee who reported the right to the decision of permission for successful bid by the auction court, filed an appeal on the grounds of illegality in the procedure without being notified of the bidding date and the bid date, and the court below, which is the appellate court, confirmed by the record that the appellant omitted the bidding date and the bid date and then accepted the appeal by the appellant. In such case, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of law since the court below decided the above decision merely based on a written hearing without pleading or examination procedures, and since the appellant acquired the right to collateral security after the decision of commencement of auction, it cannot be said that there is no special circumstance that the court below, which filed an application for auction, designating the mortgagee, senior mortgagee, or successful bidder as the other party under Article 643(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, shall have designated the right to collateral security as a legitimate right or give him/her an opportunity to state

In addition, Article 617 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the auction court shall notify the interested parties of the date of auction and the date of auction, and Article 663 (2) of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the bidding procedure. Thus, if the auction court continues the auction procedure without notifying the interested parties under Article 607 of the same Act of the bidding date and the date of auction, if the auction procedure continues to be successful, the interested parties shall be deemed to have suffered damages due to the infringement of rights in the procedure guaranteed by the Act. Thus, an immediate appeal may be filed against the decision of permission for successful bid under Article 641 (1) of the same Act, and if the interested parties are not notified of the date of auction or the date of successful bid, an immediate appeal may not be filed only where a specific or abstract property damage has occurred to the interested parties. The order of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation

Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)