With respect to the auction cases of immovables under the Auction Act, the validity of the auction procedures conducted without serving the owner of such immovables with the decision on commencing the auction procedures.

Even in an auction under this Act, the decision to commence an auction procedure takes effect by delivering it to the debtor (in case of a voluntary auction, if the debtor is not the owner of the security, the owner thereof) as stated in the compulsory auction procedure. Therefore, if the court proceeds with the auction procedure without serving it, it is illegal.

Article 25 of the Auction Act

Man-Japanese Transportation Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 61Du161 delivered on April 13, 1961

In the case of auction under the Auction Act, the decision of commencement of auction procedure is delivered to the debtor (the debtor, if the debtor is not the owner of the mortgaged property, the owner of the mortgaged property) in the same manner as the auction case in the auction procedure in the auction procedure under the Auction Act even though the court's decision on commencement of auction procedure cannot be seen as having been delivered to the re-appellant, which is the debtor, even if the court's decision on commencement of auction procedure was made. Therefore, in the case of auction procedure, the seizure is not effective, and the seizure is not yet effective, and the court is not able to proceed with the auction procedure after the auction procedure.Therefore, in this case, it is illegal that the auction court made the decision on permission of auction by going through the auction procedure.

Justices Song Dong-dong et al. (Presiding Justice)