(a) Whether a decision to grant a successful bid is illegal without publicly announcing the changed date of auction;

B. Whether there may be a ground for dissatisfaction against a decision to permit a successful bid to submit documents under Article 510 of the Civil Procedure Act for a compulsory auction

A. It cannot be said that there is no illegality in the decision of approval of a successful bid on the ground that the changed date of the successful bid is sufficient to be notified to the interested parties by mail service or by other methods and that they did not be notified

B. Even if the documents stipulated in Article 510 of the Civil Procedure Act have been submitted after the decision of approval of a successful bid for compulsory auction, this cannot be a ground for appeal that can decide the validity of the decision of approval of a successful bid.

Articles 620, 618 subparag. 7, 510, and 642 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 7Ma452 Dated July 29, 1966 66Ma125 Dated December 19, 1978

Re-appellant

Busan District Court Order 79Ra231 Dated January 23, 1980

The reappeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds for reappeal.

With respect to No. 1:

The auction court's decision to grant a successful bid on November 15, 1979 10:00 after the date of the successful bid was designated and announced publicly on November 15, 1979 :10:00 without the changed public notice; however, according to the records, it is evident that the auction court has notified the debtor (re-appellant) of the changed date of the successful bid on November 14, 1979 ; however, the method of public notice or notification of the changed date of the successful bid does not have any provision in the Civil Procedure Act; however, the original date of the successful bid is to give interested parties an opportunity to attend the date of the successful bid and state their opinions; even if the changed date of the successful bid is not publicly notified, it is sufficient to notify each changed interested party of the date of the successful bid by mail service or by any other method, and it cannot be said that the changed date of the successful bid is not erroneous in the decision to grant a successful bid license on July 6, 196.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the records, it is clear that the auction court publicly announced the fact that the annual taxes and other public charges imposed on the real estate for the purpose of auction were 2,154 in the public notice of the auction date. Therefore, the reappeal on the premise that such public notice was not given is groundless.

With respect to the third point:

Even if the document stipulated in Article 510 of the Civil Procedure Act was submitted after the decision of permission for compulsory auction was made in the procedure of compulsory auction, such reason cannot be a ground for objection that can have the effect of the decision of permission for auction which has already been lawfully made (see Supreme Court Order 7Ma452 delivered on December 19, 1978). Thus, even if the re-appellant filed a lawsuit of objection after the decision of permission for auction for the case of domestic auction and received the decision of suspension of compulsory auction, such reason cannot be a legitimate ground for reappeal. Thus, there is no ground for reappeal.

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

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Justice)