Whether it is legitimate to give notice of auction date to the interested party to enter only the name of the company of which representative director is the company.

The person receiving the notice of auction date shall not be deemed to have sent the notice of auction date to the company if there is no name of the interested party, and if only the company's name is written, it shall not be deemed that the notice of auction date to the interested party was sent to the company, and this service shall not be deemed to be a service to the interested party under the law. Furthermore, the place of business or office of the person receiving the service under the main sentence of Article 170 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the place of business or office of the person receiving the service, and the simple place of business is not the same as the simple place of business of the service party. Therefore, unless there are circumstances to deem that the notice of auction date was actually delivered to the interested party

Article 170(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Re-appellant

Busan District Court Order 93Ra220 Dated January 4, 1994

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds for reappeal as stated in the reappeal and reappeal shall be considered together.

According to the records, the Re-Appellant completed the registration of establishment of chonsegwon of 50,00,00 for lease on a deposit basis with the address of the building among the real estate for the auction purpose of this case as the address of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted), but the auction court sent the notice of the first auction date to the Re-Appellant by registered mail on September 2, 1993, while the notice of the second auction date as of October 18 of the same year and the third auction date notice as of November 18 of the same year are not served to the Re-Appellant, but is not served to the Re-Appellant, and it is known that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 who sent the auction date to ScoTex by registered mail and made the highest purchase on the third auction date, and it cannot be deemed that the above notice of the second and third auction date was made to the interested party, and therefore, the auction of this case was illegal as it was conducted without the notification of the auction date to the re-appellant.

The court below held that the service was made by the second and third auction date notice to the second and third auction date notice to the re-appellant as the service was lawfully notified. However, according to the service report based on the records, the above company's name was written, and it cannot be acknowledged that the above company's name was sent to the re-appellant as the above company's representative director. This service cannot be viewed as a service for the re-appellant under the law. Further, the service of the person who received the service under the main sentence of Article 170 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act does not correspond to the simple work place of the consignee (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da21176 delivered on February 25, 1992). The auction court's notice of auction date of this case was actually delivered to the re-appellant or the above auction date was actually delivered to the re-appellant. Thus, the above auction court's notice of auction date cannot be viewed as unlawful.

Therefore, there is a good reason to point this out, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded without examining the remaining parts of the grounds for reappeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)