The proceedings of appeal or reappeal against the decision shall not be suspended in accordance with Article 13(2) of the order, even if the obligation concerned falls under the debentures as provided in Article 10 of the order, even if the obligation concerned is the debentures as provided in Article 10 of the order.

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Central District Court Order 72Ra931 dated November 29, 1972

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds for reappeal by an agent of reappeal shall be deemed to be the grounds for reappeal.

The reason why the successful bid price is reduced more than the market price of the real estate for the purpose of auction can not be a legitimate ground for objection to the decision of the successful bid, so there is no error in the original decision that made the same decision.

In addition, according to the records, the decision of approval of the auction in this case was made on July 15, 1972, which was before the enforcement of the Emergency Order on the Stabilization and Growth of the economy (the filing of an appeal against this case was before the enforcement of the Emergency Order), and even if the mortgage debt in this case constitutes the bonds of the lawsuit in Article 10 of the Emergency Order as asserted by the Re-Appellant, it cannot be deemed that the appeal against the decision of permission of the auction in this case or the re-appeal procedure is included in one process of auction procedure (the execution procedure of mortgage) in accordance with the Auction Procedure (the Auction Procedure) in accordance with Article 13 of the same Order. Thus, the argument that the appeal in this case or the re-appeal in this case should be automatically suspended in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 above cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the reappeal is groundless, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Spanmun-gu (Presiding Justice)