The case where the successor of the property indicated the decedent as the re-appellant and the re-appeal against the decision of approval of the successful bid was lawful.

If the successor to property shows that the re-appellant's indication was erroneous in the name of the predecessor while filing a re-appeal against the decision of permission of auction in the capacity of interested parties to the real estate auction, it shall be deemed that a legitimate re-appeal has been filed.

Article 33 of the Auction Act, Article 641 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 65Ma1193 Dated February 6, 1966, October 8, 1965

The deceased ○○’s property inheritor Nonparty 1 and one other

Daegu District Court Order 82Ra24 dated April 17, 1982

All reappeals are dismissed.

1. In light of the records, ○○○○, a debtor of mortgage and owner of mortgaged real estate, who is one of the holders of the reappeals of this case, had already died before a request for auction was made, ○○○, a voluntary auction application of this case was filed, and the decision of commencement of auction and the notification of the date of auction was served on the same ○○○○○, and the appeal of this case was filed under the name of the deceased ○○○○, but all related documents were received by 1, the re-appellant, a person among the property successors of the above ○○○○○○○○○○, and submitted the same jointly with the above ○○○○○, and thus, the appeal and re-appeal can be deemed to have been filed by ○○○○○○○○, a person who was the first person among the property successors of the above ○○○○○○○○○, and thus, the appellant and the re-appellant erred in indicating the party members of this case.

2. The gist of the grounds for reappeals is that the court below rejected the reappeals' appeal against the decision of the court of auction which permitted the successful bid since the auction procedure was not only permitted the successful bid at a remarkably low price compared to the market price of the auction real estate, but also the ○○○, the debtor of the mortgaged real estate and the owner of the mortgaged real estate, died before the request for auction was made lawfully. However, the above fact that ○○○○ died was merely the ground alleged by the Re-Appellant 1 for the first time in the trial, and the court below dismissed the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff 1 did not have a legitimate ground for appeal. However, the grounds for the reappeals' appeal that the successful bid price is lower than the market price cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for reappeals' appeal against the order of the court below as it does not fall under any of subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of the Act applicable mutatis mutandis

3. Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)