logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1986. 4. 22.자 86그44 결정
[부동산경락허가결정][공1986.7.15.(780),862]
Main Issues

Special appeal against the decision of approval of a successful bid (negative)

Summary of Decision

The special appeal stipulated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act may be filed against a ruling or order which is not entitled to file an objection, and an immediate appeal may be filed pursuant to Article 641(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 33(2) of the Auction Act, against the ruling of permission of an auction. Thus, a special appeal against the ruling of permission of an auction is not allowed.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 420, 641(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 33(2) of the Auction Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Order 85.10 dated October 10, 1985, 85g131

Special Appellants

Special Appellants

The order of the court below

Seoul District Court Order 12758 Decided February 24, 1986, 85ta12758

Text

The special appeal shall be dismissed.

Reasons

On the other hand, the special appeal of this case can bring an appeal against the decision of approval of a successful bid by the court below or against the order that is not allowed to file an appeal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The decision of approval of a successful bid can be filed pursuant to Article 641 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act which is applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 33 (2) of the Auction Act (However, in the auction procedure for overdue loans of this case under the Act on Special Measures for the Loans in Arrears of Financial Institutions, a person who intends to file an appeal shall deposit a security under Article 5-2 of the same Act). Thus, the special appeal of this case is not permitted because the special appeal of this case is subject to a decision that can file an appeal under Article 5-2 of the same Act.

Therefore, the special appeal of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)

arrow
본문참조조문