logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1993. 3. 4.자 93마178 결정
[경락허가결정][공1993.5.15.(944),1264]
Main Issues

Public notice of the date of auction and the date of auction, notice and notification to interested parties, whether the interested parties who reported their rights after notice and notification are not notified of the date of auction and the date of auction (affirmative)

Summary of Decision

The notification and notification of the auction date and the auction date to interested parties, such as debtors, owners, junior mortgagees, etc., and notification by registered mail pursuant to Article 617(3) of the Civil Procedure Act shall not be deemed unlawful on the ground that the interested parties, who reported their rights, accompanied by a certified copy of the register, did not notify the above auction date and the auction date for which the notification procedure has been completed.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 617 of the Civil Procedure Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Order 70Ma878 Dated January 13, 1971 (No. 19 ① civil13)

Re-appellant

Re-appellant

The order of the court below

Suwon District Court Order 92Ra207 Dated December 29, 1992

Text

The reappeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the records, the Re-Appellant's notice of the auction date of October 19, 192 and notice of the auction date of 1:00 of the same month and 14:00 of the auction date of the same month to the interested parties, such as debtor, owner, junior mortgagee, etc., and notification of the right by registered mail under Article 617 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act was made on October 16 of the same month, and the notification of the right was made with a certified copy of the register attached to the above auction date and the auction date of the auction date. Thus, the Re-Appellant's notification of the auction date cannot be deemed unlawful because the notification of the above auction date was not made to the re-appellant (see Supreme Court Order 70Ma878, Jan. 13, 1971). Thus, the judgment of the court below which points out the legitimate notification of the auction date to the interested parties prior to the auction date cannot be deemed to have violated legal principles as to notification of the auction date of the auction auction date. Meanwhile, it is not unlawful for the court's's notice of other interested parties to the auction date.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)

arrow