An appeal against the reduction of the successful bid price by the auction court on the ground that a part of the auction real estate was lost before the date of the successful bid after the decision to permit the successful bid becomes final and conclusive shall not be considered as "an appeal against the decision to permit the successful bid".

An appeal against the decision of reduction of the price for the reason that part of the auction real estate has been lost before the payment date after the decision of permission for the falling of the auction real estate becomes final and conclusive shall not be considered as the "appeal against the decision of permission for the falling of the auction".

Article 33(2) of the Auction Act, Article 640 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 642 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 5-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Credit Loans of Financial Institutions

Eastern Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Order 70Ra856 delivered on February 3, 1971, Seoul High Court Decision 70Ra856 delivered on February 3, 1971

The original decision (order) shall be reversed.

This case is remanded to Seoul Civil District Court Panel Division.

As to the reasons for the reappeal:

According to the records, the creditor's commercial bank and the Seoul Bank are the debtor as the right to collateral security, and they voluntarily request the auction of this case owned by the re-appellant, and the decision of permission of auction has become final and conclusive on June 10, 1970, the auction court issued a separate notice of the date of payment of auction price to the commercial bank, which is the creditor, as of June 13, 1970, which was later changed on June 9, 1970, and later the next date was later designated. However, the Korean Commercial Bank, which was the above successful bidder, was not liable to the creditor or debtor before paying the auction price (the above decision of permission of auction becomes final and conclusive on December 19, 1969). However, it was clear that some of the auction price of this case was dismissed by the court below's decision of permission of auction on the ground that it was not subject to reduction of 5/10 of the auction price due to the defects in the above decision of permission of the court below as to the above auction price order.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds for further appeal, the original decision is unfair and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall have the right to ask questions to the public on the Red Round Puls