Whether the changed auction date is publicly notified or not;

The changed auction date is sufficient to notify each interested party of the fact by mail service or by other methods, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law in the decision of permission of auction.

Article 617 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-Appellant 1 and one other (Attorney Yoon-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Order 65Ra451, January 22, 1966

The reappeal is dismissed.

(1) Although there is no provision in the Auction Act or the Civil Procedure Act regarding the changed method of public notice or notification of the auction date, the purport of public notice of the auction date is to inform interested parties of the auction date and give them an opportunity to state their opinions on the auction date, so even if the changed date of auction is not publicly notified, it is sufficient to notify each interested party of the changed date of auction by mail service or other method, and it is sufficient to know it, and the changed date of auction is not publicly notified. Thus, the decision of permission of auction cannot be said to be an error of law.

Therefore, a re-appeal, which is an opposing opinion, cannot be employed.

(2) On September 29, 1965, the appellant and his/her representative asked that the grounds for appeal stated in the petition of appeal should not be asserted on the date of examination of the court below. Since it is apparent by the protocol, it is without merit to re-appeal that they did not judge the grounds for appeal stated in the petition of appeal; and

(3) The reason for appeal, i.e., the reason for appeal that the appellant 2 submitted as of November 30, 1965 on the supplementary appellate brief, i.e., the changed notice of the date of appeal, is the same as the statement in the reason for appeal submitted as of September 1, 1965 by the relevant Gu office, and it is apparent that the court below judged it in light of the contents of the original decision, and therefore, it is groundless; and

(4) The reason for appeal, i.e., the reason for appeal that the appellant 2 submitted as of November 29, 1965, stated in the reason for supplementary appeal, that is, the records to be attached to the auction, should be available at least one hour prior to the commencement of the auction and be available to the interested parties for inspection, but only only 20 minutes only are available for inspection. Thus, it is without any legal basis. Thus, even if the court below did not make a decision on this point, it does not affect the result.

Therefore, the reappeals are all groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-sub (Presiding Judge)