Appropriateness of the decision to grant a successful bid that includes an annex not listed in the register for the purpose of auction

If the part of the kitchen 6.3 square meters, which is a building not registered on the register, is not an independent building, but a part of the building attached to the house and its appurtenant building which is the object of the collateral security, and is not a part of the building attached to this building, it is subject to the effect of collateral security in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Code, and there is no error of law in the measures of the auction court that included the building for the purpose of auction.

Article 358 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Daejeon District Court Order 86Ra36 dated March 22, 1986

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. The first ground for re-appeal is that the object of re-appeal, which is the basis of the voluntary auction of this case, was the 226 square meters wide and 226 square meters wide and the 100.4 square meters long and 27.01 square meters long and 4.07 square meters wide and above the above site and the above building were not registered on the above site. The first ground for re-appeal is that the appraiser ordered by the auction court, who is not registered on the above site, was not registered on the registry, and there was a building (1) of cement jujujug and 6.3 square meters long and 6.8 square meters long and 11.2 square meters long and 66,48,570 square meters long and its ground brick and cement brick sloakbed roof, which are indicated on the registry, and the building other than the above presented building was presented at the market price of the above 6,46,570 square meters and 1650 square meters, and it is not erroneous in the auction procedure.

According to the appraisal report (56 to 65) bound by the records, it is clear that the above non-Presentation building (1), (2) and (3) are built on the housing and its appurtenant building which is not an independent building, but which is the object of the collateral security, and is only a part of the building attached to the building. Thus, it is obvious that the collateral security of this case is effective in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Code, and there is no illegality in the measures of the auction court that included the above non-Presentation building for the purpose of auction. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

2. The second ground for reappeal argues that the above service to the re-appellant, who is an interested party of this case, was not lawfully achieved, or the second ground for reappeal is without merit, since it does not fall under any of the above provisions of Article 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings only in the case falling under Article 11 (1) of the same Act and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for reappeal.

3. As to the third ground for re-appeal, according to the letter of delegation bound to the records, the delegating person’s non-party stated that he/she participated in the auction of real estate in this case and delegated all acts concerning the delivery of goods in the name of the delegating person. The purport of the ground for re-appeal is to be interpreted as granting the power of representation in the auction procedure. Therefore,

4. Ultimately, the arguments are without merit, and the reappeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Osung-hwan (Presiding Justice)