Where an auction court fails to notify other co-owners of the existence of a request for auction in an auction of a co-owned share, whether a co-owner who has received a request for auction may assert it as a ground for appeal against the decision of permission for auction (negative)

Article 649(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is only a provision to guarantee the preferential bid right of other co-owners as stipulated in Article 650 of the same Act in the auction of co-ownership of real estate. Since the auction court did not notify other co-owners of the application for auction because it does not guarantee the co-owners' rights or legal interests in the auction, even though the auction court did not notify other co-owners of the application for auction of the above reasons, the co-owners who received the application for auction cannot claim

Articles 649(1), 650, and 642(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 91Ra491 Dated December 2, 1991

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The provisions of Article 649 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act only guarantee the preferential bid right of other co-owners as stipulated in Article 650 of the same Act in the auction of co-ownership of real estate, and the auction court did not notify other co-owners of the application for auction because it does not guarantee the co-owners' rights or legal interests. Thus, the co-owners who received the application for auction can not claim the above reasons as grounds for appeal against the decision of permission of auction, and the order of the court below based on the same opinion is just, and there is no ground for appeal.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)