A. Whether the debtor is an interested party who can contest the validity of the decision of permission of a successful bid on the ground that the debtor violated the surplus principle in the compulsory auction of immovables

B. Legal nature of Article 620(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

(c) In making the indication of auction real estate, if only the parcel number, building structure and size of the property at issue are stated after deducting the word "evaluation case", whether the date of auction is legitimate (affirmative)

A. Article 616 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that, in the compulsory auction of immovables, if there is no surplus in the expenses of the auction procedure and all of the expenses of the auction procedure which take precedence over the seized claims with the minimum auction price for the compulsory auction of immovables, it shall not continue the auction procedure if there is no surplus. Therefore, the debtor is an interested party who can contest against the decision of permission of auction in violation

B. Article 620(1) of the Civil Procedure Act merely provides a decoration, and even if a court of execution set the auction date on the date seven days after the date of auction, it cannot be deemed that the auction date is unlawful.

C. Article 618 of the Civil Procedure Act requires an indication of real estate in the public notice of the date of auction to inform the interested parties of the data to evaluate the specificness of the object of auction and the objective actual price of the object of auction. Thus, in the public notice of the date of auction, “evaluation case” is indicated in the public notice of the date of auction, even if the parcel number, building structure, and size of the object are stated after deducting the phrase “evaluation case”, it does not affect the assessment of the objective price, so such real estate indication cannot be deemed unlawful.

(a) Article 616(b) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 620(1)(c) of the Act;

Supreme Court Order 81Ma158 delivered on August 29, 1981, 81Ma240 delivered on September 30, 1981, 4293 civilian ports405 delivered on January 18, 1961

[Judgment of the court below]

Gwangju District Court Order 84Ra16 dated July 2, 1984

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. Article 616 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that, in the compulsory auction of immovables, if there is no surplus in the expenses of the auction procedure and all of the expenses of the auction procedure which take precedence over the seized claims with the minimum auction price for the compulsory auction of immovables, it shall not continue the auction procedure if there is no surplus. Thus, the debtor is an interested party who is entitled to dispute against the decision of permission of auction in violation of the above provision (see Supreme Court Order 81Ma158 delivered on August 29, 1981 and Order 81Ma240 delivered on September 30, 1981).

2. Article 620(1) of the Civil Procedure Act merely provides a decoration, and even if a court of execution set the auction date on the date seven days after the date of auction, the auction date cannot be deemed to be unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 4293Du405, Jan. 18, 1961).

3. Article 618 of the Civil Procedure Act requires an indication of real estate in the public notice of the date of auction to inform the interested parties of the data to evaluate the objective actual price of the specific subject matter of auction and the subject matter of auction. As such, in the public notice of the date of auction in this case, the notice of the date of auction in the public notice of the date of auction in this case stating the location number, building structure, and reputation of the subject matter, which excludes the phrase "evaluation case", but it does not affect the specification of the subject matter or the evaluation of its objective price, so such real estate indication cannot be

4. The fact that the successful bid price is low shall not be a legitimate ground for dissatisfaction with the decision of approval of the successful bid.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed as without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)