Part of a representative for filing a request for auction by a non-legal practitioner

Although a request for auction has become a procedural act, it is not a judicial act stipulated in Article 80(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, so there is a qualification to act as an attorney, not a lawyer.

Article 80(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Busan District Court Order 85Ra147 dated August 13, 1985

The reappeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds for reappeal.

The summary of the reasons for reappeal is as follows: First, the auction court violated the provisions of Article 24 of the Auction Act, Articles 602 and 618 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thereby omitting the actual part of the building (in the present non-party building indication) from the public notice of the auction date despite the difference between the auction object and the real building. Second, there is an error of law that allowed a person who is not an attorney-at-law to proceed with the auction procedure.

However, such reasons do not fall under any of the causes stipulated in Articles 13 and 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Urban Litigation, and thus, cannot be a legitimate re-appeal (in particular, examining the records on the representation of auction act, it is recognized that the non-party 1 filed a request for auction on behalf of the creditor non-party 2 and the non-party 3, and the above creditors subsequently won a successful bid in the future of the above creditors by filing a request for auction on behalf of the creditor non-party 2 and the non-party 3. As such, although the application for auction was a litigation, it does not constitute a judicial act

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)