logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1960. 11. 20. 선고 4293민재항240 판결
[부동산경락허가결정에대한재항고][집8민,186]
Main Issues

(a) Effect of appraisal of auction real estate with legal filing;

(b) Notice of the date of auction and the date of auction in writing;

Summary of Judgment

A. Even though a person is in the position of a legal officer, if the auction court recognizes his ability to appraise the auction real estate and orders the person to appraise the auction real estate, the appraised value should be the legitimate lowest price unless there are special circumstances.

B. In the auction of real estate, the notification of the date of auction to the debtor and the owner and the notification of the date of auction are not stipulated by each notification of the date of auction. Thus, the notification of the date of auction and the date of auction were made by the same document, and it cannot be said that the notification of the date of auction was illegal.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 615 and 617 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

The number of authorized scrap metal

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu High Court Decision 60Do81 delivered on November 2, 1960, decided November 2, 1960

Reasons

Even if a person is in the position of court clerk, if the auction court recognizes the ability to appraise the auction real estate and orders the reporter to appraise the auction real estate, barring any special circumstance, it shall be a legitimate minimum price. The theory of lawsuit on the price appraisal of the auction real estate is that the non-party is the person who is in the position of court clerk without any assertion or proof as to special circumstances that recognize the appraisal illegal, and it is not reasonable to discuss that the non-party is the person who is in the position of court clerk. In addition, in the auction of real estate, the notification of the auction date and the notification of the auction date to the debtor and the owner is not a legal court. Therefore, the notification of the auction date and the auction date for the re-appellant cannot be called an illegal notification of the difference because the notification of the auction date and the auction date were made in the same document.

Justices Byunok-ju (Presiding Justice)

arrow