In case where a notice of auction date is impossible to be served due to the absence of long-term closure, whether it can be served by mail immediately after the notice of auction date (negative)

The delivery of mail pursuant to Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act is permitted only when it is impossible to serve supplementary documents or to keep them in custody. Thus, in notifying interested parties of the date of auction, the auction court has served the notice of the date of auction to the lawfully served address until the date of the preceding auction, and as a result, in the absence of long-term closure documents, the service of mail pursuant to Article 172 of the Civil Procedure Act is immediately carried out without being served, or served on the effective date pursuant to Article 173 of the same Act, and the auction procedure is conducted without being served by supplementary documents or custody pursuant to Article 172 of the same Act, and it is illegal.

Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 9 of the Auction Act

Supreme Court Order 69Ma634 Decided October 5, 1969

Appellant 1 et al.

Suwon District Court Order 88Ra196 dated February 22, 1989

The original decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court Panel Division.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below maintained the auction procedure as to the Re-Appellant 2 on February 23, 198, with the notice of the auction date designated as 13:00 on February 23, 198, and decided to change the auction date when the service was impossible due to the lack of long-term closure until the notice of the auction date of the previous auction date. On March 4 of the same year, the next auction date was designated as 13:0 on March 22 of the same year, and on March 22 of the same year, the mail was delivered pursuant to Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act to the above auction date (the documents delivered were impossible due to the absence of long-term closure) and the notice of the auction date was delivered to the above 20th auction date on April 2 of the same year, which was lawfully delivered to the above 1, 205,000,000 won and each of the above auction dates was delivered to the above 21th auction date.

However, the mail delivery pursuant to Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act is limited to the case where it is impossible to serve as a supplementary delivery or attraction (see Supreme Court Order 69Ma634 delivered on October 5, 1969). Thus, as determined by the court below, the auction court notifies the above-appellant 2 of the auction date and the auction date designated as 13:00 on April 21 of the same year, and as to the above-Appellant 1, it cannot be exempted from the minimum auction price reduction of the auction price as stated in Article 172 of the Civil Procedure Act without any additional delivery or confinement as stipulated in Article 172 of the same Act. Since it is presumed that the mail delivery as stipulated in Article 173 of the same Act was to have been delivered on the above-mentioned date, and that the auction procedure was conducted on the date of auction, which is the premise that it was invalid, and it is unlawful to reduce the auction price of this case until the minimum auction price reduction of the auction price of this case.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the delivery of mail under Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act without any supplementary service or custody under Article 172 of the same Act was lawful and did not err in the decision of approval of the successful bid of this case is clearly affected by the conclusion of the decision, since it is obvious that the decision of approval of the successful bid of this case was affected by the interpretation of laws inconsistent with the precedents of the party members concerning the delivery of mail of this case.

Therefore, the order of the court below that is unnecessary to determine the remaining grounds for reappeal 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 participating Justices.

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