The auction procedure is unlawful in the case of a public auction conducted through a public auction for the land investigated at the end of the month. However, if the amount is the same as the amount of the public auction conducted by the competent public office, which was completed later, the public notice of the auction date is legitimate.

The public notice of the auction date according to the investigation and report on collection of the amount of the auction land shall have no effect on the result of the auction if the amount of the public notice stated in the certificate of property tax is the same as that of the house delivery investigation.

Article 602 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 618 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 24 and 31 of the Auction Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Civil History District Court Decision 70Ra80 delivered on December 5, 1970

The reappeal is dismissed.

The judgment on the grounds for reappeal by the re-appellant

According to the records, since the court of auction conducted an auction by omitting the attached article and the attached article from the auction by having the affiliated alalalalian to investigate and report the attached article and the attached article at the 9th grade of the building listed on the registry, which is the ( Address omitted), pointing out the issue price, and the auction price is not a legitimate reason for appeal. The reason that the auction price is low compared with the market price is not a legitimate reason for appeal, and the fact that the auction was conducted by having the public notice of auction conducted by having the public notice of auction conducted an auction by having the public notice of the one-year report and the amount of the attached article on the land are inconsistent with the provisions of the Auction Act and the Civil Procedure Act. However, according to the contents of the property tax certificate on the land issued by the head of Nowon-jin 1, which is the public office under his jurisdiction completed later, it cannot be said that the date of auction was the same as the amount reported by the public notice of the auction. Thus, the court below's decision is justified and without merit.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)