In the public notice of the auction date, the case cannot be concluded that there is an error of law that may undermine the objective identity of real estate for auction purposes.

In the building structure, however, if the first house was simply reconstructed, it cannot be concluded that there was a violation of the law to the extent that it would prejudice the objective identity of the object of auction even though it was indicated as the first house in the public notice of auction date.

Article 618 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 31 of the Auction Act

Re-appellant

Daejeon District Court Decision 69Ra83 delivered on July 31, 1969

The reappeal is dismissed.

As to the reasons for the reappeal:

According to the records, this house is the first house on the register, but the actual house is a house, so the auction court has conducted an auction at the lowest auction price because the price lawfully assessed as the house is a unit of actual flag. However, as the auction has become impossible on the grounds that there is no applicant for auction through several occasions, the auction price can be reduced lawfully and the auction has been conducted as a result of conducting an auction, and it can be seen that the building structure of the above house has been remodeled, and it is nothing more than the reconstruction of the house without any change, so it is difficult to conclude that there is an error of law to the extent that it would undermine the objective identity of the real estate for the purpose of auction even if it is marked as the first house on the notice of the auction date as the first house on the notice of the auction date, it is difficult to employ an argument that the notice of auction date is unfair and its evaluation is unreasonable.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)