In the public notice of the date of auction, the defects in the case where the amount of other public imposts or values has been erroneously stated in an amount which is significantly less than the actual amount, and the granting of

In light of the provisions of Article 33(2) of the former Auction Act and Articles 642, 633, and 635 of the former Civil Procedure Act, the purpose of public notice on the date of auction under the former Auction Act is to inform the applicants for auction of the fact and to refer to the determination of the price of the real estate for the purpose of reference. Thus, the public notice on a significantly smaller amount than the aggregate amount of the taxes, etc. shall not be deemed to have been a notice on the legitimate public notice. In light of the provisions of Article 33(2) of the former Auction Act and Articles 642, 633, and 635 of the former Civil Procedure Act, the public notice on the date of auction as above is an illegal

Articles 31 and 33(2) of the former Auction Act (repealed by Act No. 4201, Jan. 13, 1990); Articles 618, 633, 635, and 642 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201, Jan. 13, 1990)

Supreme Court Order 77Ma120 dated May 20, 197 (Gong1977, 10142) 80Ma364 dated October 4, 1980 (Gong1980, 13293)

Kim Jong-seok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Msan District Court Order 90Ra37 dated October 15, 1990

The original decision is reversed and the decision to grant the successful bid of this case is revoked.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the original decision and records, with respect to the site of 217-3, 345,470 won, urban planning tax, fire fighting tax, and defense tax aggregate, 64,870 won, property tax 1,327,420 won, aggregate taxation of urban planning tax, etc. as above 3,823,720 won, property tax 168,580 won, aggregate taxation of urban planning tax, etc. on the site of 217-20 won, 168,680 won, aggregate taxation of urban planning tax, etc. on the site of 317,000 won, 200 won, 36,120 won, and 217-21,000 won, 37,000 won, and 274,000 won, 37,000 won, 27,000 won, and 17,000 won, 27,017,00 won, respectively, respectively.

However, according to Article 31 of the Auction Act, Article 618 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, which was enforced at the time of the auction of this case (hereinafter the same shall apply), the notice of the auction date provides that the notice of tax and other public imposts shall be made by stating and publicly announcing taxes and other public imposts. As such, the notice of tax and public imposts is intended to inform the applicant for the auction of this fact and to refer to determining the price of the real estate for the purpose of the auction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 7Ma120, May 20, 197). Thus, it cannot be said that there was a notice of legitimate tax and other public imposts, and that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above public auction date and public notice of the auction date in light of Article 33 (2) of the Auction Act, Articles 632, 633, and 635 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the court below did not ex officio ex officio examine the auction date, despite the absence of ex officio determination of the above 14.7.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that it is unnecessary to determine the remaining grounds for reappeal, and that the original decision is reversed and the decision of permission of auction maintained by the court below is revoked

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won