In a voluntary auction procedure, repayment after notification of rejection of a decision to permit a successful bid, and whether there are grounds for reappeal

Even if a debtor paid the debt that is secured by the right to collateral security and the auction procedure expenses after the decision of rejection of the decision of permission of auction was notified in the procedure of voluntary auction, the ground for reappeal against the decision of permission of auction cannot be the ground for reappeal against the decision of permission of auction, regardless of whether such ground is a ground for

Articles 642 and 728 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 66Ma343 Dated July 25, 1979 Dated July 27, 1961 4294 Ma156 Dated May 31, 1966

Yeonsu-do Co., Ltd., Ltd., Mangsan Oath

Chuncheon District Court Order 90Ra34 dated October 20, 1990

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

As long as an auction procedure is lawful, the argument that the successful bid price is high in comparison with the market price is not a legitimate reason for an appeal against the decision of permission of a successful bid, and even if an obligor paid the obligation to guarantee collateral and the expenses of the auction procedure after the decision of rejection of an appeal against the decision of permission of a successful bid was notified in the auction procedure, the ground for appeal against the decision of permission of a successful bid shall not be a ground for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 4294Du395, Jul. 27, 1961; Supreme Court Order 66Ma343, May 31, 1966; Supreme Court Order 79Ma156, Jul. 25, 1979).

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)