Whether there is a ground for re-appeal against the decision to permit a successful bid

Even if there was a private agreement to withdraw a request for auction between the parties, it is impossible to proceed with the auction procedure unless the withdrawal is submitted lawfully, so this does not fall under any of the cases provided in Articles 13 and 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for reappeal.

Article 33 of the Auction Act, Article 11(1) and Article 13 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

Appellant 1 et al.

Gwangju District Court Order 83Ra33 dated October 13, 1983

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds for reappeal are examined.

According to the order of the court below, first, the re-appellant paid a total of KRW 21,00,000 to the creditor (the other party) but after macroscopic evidence and the result of the party examination of the court below, 11,00,000 won remaining after the repayment of the secured debt of this case can be recognized as being a part of his own separate debt of the re-appellant against the creditor (the other party) and thus, the court below decided to grant a successful bid by proceeding the auction of the real estate of this case under the premise that the secured debt of this case is not fully paid, and second, even if the parties agreed to withdraw a request for auction, the auction procedure can not be conducted unless the withdrawal is submitted lawfully. Third, the court below's judgment is just and justified, and it does not constitute a ground for reappeal under Article 131 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Lawsuits, etc., and therefore, it does not constitute a legitimate ground for reappeal under Article 131 of the same Act.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)