Whether or not repayment can be a ground for reappeal after the decision to dismiss an appeal.

After notification of the decision of dismissal of appeal, the debtor's repayment or deposit of repayment may not be a legitimate ground for reappeal against the decision of permission of adjudication.

Article 33 of the Auction Act

Supreme Court Order 64Ma14 Decided March 30, 1964

Re-appellant

Busan District Court Order 79Ra50 dated April 28, 1979

The reappeal is dismissed.

The gist of the Re-Appellant's grounds for re-appeal is that the Re-Appellant's decision to grant the bid price of this case should be revoked, since the Re-Appellant's repayment of KRW 3,00,000 to the creditor around January 6, 1979, KRW 368,542 won in January 18, 1979, KRW 368,542 won in gold, and KRW 7,000,000 in gold, KRW 7,004,593 won in gold, and KRW 4,932,00 in gold, five hundred in May 25, 1979.

However, the re-appellant's assertion as above was not asserted until the court below's judgment, and it was asserted only for the first time. According to the records, since it is evident that the decision of dismissal on April 25, 1979 was notified to the re-appellant on April 28, 1979, the debtor's repayment or deposit after the notification of the decision of dismissal on auction permission cannot be a legitimate re-appeal against the decision of dismissal (refer to Supreme Court Order 64Ma17 dated March 30, 1964). Thus, the plaintiff's argument of repayment as of May 25, 1979 cannot be a ground for re-appeal based on its argument itself, and as to the remaining claim of repayment, there is no evidence to acknowledge it even if the records up to the decision of the above appellate court's appeal were set. Thus, all arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)