(a) Where the building site and its ground buildings become the object of auction, and a blanket auction;

(b) Scope of creditors under Article 636 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 33 of the Auction Act;

(c) Article 633(5) of the Civil Procedure Act, where no report is made on the notice of the date of auction from the market at the location of real estate and the notice of the date of auction;

A. It is reasonable to view that the creditor referred to in Article 636 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under this Article, means only the creditor who takes precedence over the creditor of the request for auction.

(b) In case where the building site and its ground buildings are for auction purposes, it is reasonable to hold a blanket auction in view of the economic, social and utility of the building site and its ground buildings.

(c) Where a report on the notice of the date of auction from the market at the location of real estate is not recorded, the successful bid shall not be permitted because it falls under a cause under subparagraph 5 of Article 633 of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis under this Article.

Article 36 of the Auction Act, Article 633(5) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 636(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Appellant 1 and 2 others

Daegu District Court Decision 67Ra134 delivered on November 4, 1967

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

The grounds of reappeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined.

However, according to the records, real estate in (1) (2) and (3) (4) is the site of each auction, real estate is the site of (2) real estate, real estate is the site of (3) real estate, and real estate is the site of (4) real estate, and real estate is the site of (4) real estate. In the event that a building on the land and its ground is the object of auction, it is reasonable to hold a blanket auction by considering the site and its economic use and utility of the building and its ground, and it is clear that the minimum auction price of real estate in (3) (4) in the attached list is 1,25,350 won, and the auction price is 1,255,60 won, and since the auction price is 1,25,600 won, there is no reason to conclude that the auction price is less than the minimum auction price.

The order of the court below held that since the total amount of claims of each mortgagee on the present auction real estate exceeds 6,902,750 won, which is the proceeds of the present auction (such amount as KRW 6,903,00 as stated in the separate sheet), it is justifiable to grant a successful bid. However, according to the records, the appellant who is the creditor applying for the present auction is the highest mortgagee on the real estate which is the object of the present auction, and the claim for the present auction is 3,710,000 won and damages for delay. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the creditor under Article 636 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 33 of the Auction Act means only the creditor who takes priority over the creditor applying for the auction. In case where several auction requests have been filed for the auction, it is reasonable to determine that there is no error in the law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the remaining claims and expenses of the auction, which are one or several real estate auction creditors, and the remaining claims and expenses of the auction will not be appropriated for the auction.

The Re-Appellant's ground of reappeal is examined.

According to the public health, records, as to the argument that there was no legitimate public notice on the auction date of the second auction, the auction court entrusted the Daegu City Mayor with the notice of the notice of the auction date on August 25, 1967, but there was no trace that the report on the notice of the notice of the auction date was made from the Daegu City Mayor, and thus, it cannot be known whether the notice of the auction date was posted on the Daegu City Viewer’s bulletin board. However, if the notice of the auction date was not given, the auction of this case cannot be permitted because it constitutes a case where there was a reason under Article 633(5) of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis by Article 33 of the Auction Act. However, even though the court below did not disclose it and stated that the decision of the auction permission was justifiable, it is reasonable to discuss this point.

Therefore, the order of the court below is not exempt from the reversal without any judgment on the remaining grounds of reappeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu