Where a lawsuit to confirm the existence of the mortgaged debt is filed during the course of a voluntary auction and a decision of provisional disposition is rendered pursuant to Article 507 of the Civil Procedure Act, the nature of the objection against the decision.

In a case where a lawsuit to confirm the absence of mortgage obligation is filed during the auction process and a provisional disposition order is issued pursuant to Article 507 of the Civil Procedure Act, the objection cannot be raised by analogy of Article 473(3) of the same Act, and in a case where such objection cannot be raised, the special appeal stipulated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be permitted, and even if the parties did not indicate the special appeal and did not indicate that it is against the Supreme Court, it shall be deemed a special appeal.

Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 84G15 Dated March 27, 1984 Dated February 13, 1985 Dated February 13, 1985

Attorney Song-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

lot Commercial Corporation

Seoul Central District Court Order 85Ka9702 Dated March 18, 1985

The special appeal is dismissed.

The grounds for special appeal are examined.

In an auction under the Auction Act, the provisions concerning compulsory execution under the Civil Procedure Act concerning compulsory execution shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case where the nature of the auction is so limited that Article 1 of the Auction Act applies mutatis mutandis. Thus, pursuant to Article 505 of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of an obligation corresponding to a lawsuit for which an objection is raised may be filed. In this case, with respect to the decision of provisional disposition under Article 507 of the Civil Procedure Act, an objection may not be filed by analogy pursuant to Article 473(3) of the same Act, and as to the decision not to file an objection, only the special appeal stipulated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be permitted, and even if the party did not indicate that it is a special appeal and did not indicate that it is against the Supreme Court, the appeal in this case shall be deemed a special appeal since it is a case of party members.

According to Article 420 of the above Act, a special appeal may be made only on the ground that there is a violation of the Constitution or laws that affected the judgment. As such, the original decision does not constitute a violation of the Constitution or laws, but criticism of the original decision on the grounds of the procedure for filing a petition for auction or the merits of the lawsuit outside the objection cannot be a legitimate special appeal, and it cannot be found that there is a violation of the Constitution or laws. Thus, the argument is groundless.

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

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)