In a case where an objection is raised against the progress of the auction procedure on the grounds of the unpaid payment of the successful bid price even though the date of payment was not notified, the validity of the decision to grant the successful bid in the auction procedure.

If a successful bidder fails to notify the successful bidder of the due date for the payment of the successful bid price, the auction court may not proceed with the auction procedure by ordering the re-auction on the ground that the successful bidder did not pay the auction price by the due date for the payment of the auction price. However, if the auction court ordering the re-auction, there is an illegal ground not to permit the re-auction under Articles 728, 635, and 633 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the decision to permit the auction made in the re-auction procedure cannot be maintained any longer, unless the interested party submits a written petition to the court of the original court for objection against the illegal reason.

Articles 633 subparag. 1, 635, and 728 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 70Ma553 Dated October 16, 1970 (No. 18Third citizen 192) dated September 22, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2788)

Re-appellant

Supreme Court Order 94Ma759 Dated September 22, 1994

Seoul District Court Order 94Ra1201 Decided March 29, 1995

The order of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the records, the Seoul District Court's decision of permission for auction on March 18, 1993 to the Re-Appellant 1 in the real estate auction case No. 92 other. 10766. The Re-Appellant was legally present at the court of auction on May 11 of the same year when his address was changed from Mapo-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted). The auction court was designated on August 17, 1993 as of September 16, 1993 and notified the successful bidder of the payment date of auction price to the previous address of the Re-Appellant 9. The court of auction did not ex officio order the Re-Appellant 1 to suspend auction price for the reason that the Re-Appellant did not pay the auction price to the court of first instance on September 6, 1993.

In the absence of a lawful notice of the date of payment of the successful bid price to the successful bidder, the auction court cannot proceed with the auction procedure by ordering the successful bidder to re-auction on the ground that the successful bidder did not pay the auction price on the date of payment of the successful bid price. Nevertheless, if the auction court ordered re-auction and proceeds with the auction procedure, there is an illegal ground not to permit the auction under Articles 728, 635, and 633 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, inasmuch as the re-auction, who is an interested party to the reason for illegality, files an objection to the court below on December 14, 1994, the decision of permission of the successful bid against the above non-party in the auction procedure is no longer maintained.

Nevertheless, the court below revoked the ruling of rejection of the successful bid against the above non-party on the ground that the non-party, who is an interested party, and ordered the above non-party to grant the permission of the successful bid. Thus, the order of the court below is in violation of the law which affected the judgment, and there is a reason to point this out

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)