Requirements for filing an immediate appeal against a decision of permission of a successful bid or a decision of permission of a successful bid as an interested party under Article 607 subparagraph 4 of the former Civil Procedure Act.

[1] Article 607 subparagraph 4 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) (see Article 90 subparagraph 4 of the current Civil Execution Act)

Supreme Court Order 94Ma1342 dated September 13, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2786) 94Ma1455 dated September 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2787) Supreme Court Order 99Ma3792 dated August 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 2158)

Co., Ltd. (trade name before the change: Effective electricity) and one other

Maliscopes

Suwon District Court Order 2003Ra370 dated December 26, 2003

All reappeals shall be dismissed.

Judgment ex officio is made.

In order to file an immediate appeal against the decision of permission of auction or the decision of permission of successful bid under Article 607 subparagraph 4 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002), an interested party shall be a person who is an interested party under Article 607 subparagraph 4 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Sep. 14, 1994). Thus, if the right holder fails to prove his/her right to the auction court, he/she shall not be an interested party in the auction procedure (see Supreme Court Order 94Ma1455 of Sept. 14,

According to the records, the re-appellant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "re-appellant fire tex electricity") was a creditor of Samju General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the " Samju General Construction") who is the creditor of the application for voluntary auction of this case. On January 23, 2003, the re-appellant reported on January 23, 2003 that he exercised the right of retention on behalf of the lien for the auction real estate of this case by the auction court, and on February 28, 2003, the re-appellant reported on February 28, 2003 that the auction court occupied and managed the real estate of this case as well

Therefore, according to the records, we examine whether the re-appellant is an interested party under Article 607 Item 4 of the above Act, and the re-appellant's fire texer shall report the right of retention in lieu of the comprehensive construction of Samju, and submit only the provisional seizure order of collateral security claims, delivery certificate, and real estate copy. The Re-Appellant's pre-appellant's pre-appellant's pre-appellant's loan only submitted the real estate copy upon reporting the right of retention, and each of the above evidences alone is insufficient to recognize the lien of Samju General Construction or Re-Appellant's pre-appellant's each right of retention. Even if all of the records of this case were examined, the Re-Appellant's non-appellant's non-existence does not constitute an interested party in the auction procedure of this case. Therefore, the court below cannot be deemed an interested party who can file a re-appeal against the decision of permission of successful bid of this case. Thus, the Re-Appellant's eligibility for the decision of permission of bid

Therefore, the reappeal of this case filed by the re-appellant without the eligibility of the re-appellant is illegal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)