A. The case holding that, where a notice of auction date was sent as “A” paper but it was impossible to serve as “B” paper due to the impossibility of being served as a director due to the impossibility of being served as “B” paper, the mail delivery as “B” paper was not unlawful even if the mail delivery was unlawful as “B” paper earlier

B. Whether a special permission is required for delivery by registered mail (negative)

(c) Whether a reappeal is appropriate for reasons of defects in the service of the notice of auction date to other interested parties (negative)

D. Whether the failure of the successful bidder's address is unlawful without creating the successful bidder's price three times at the date of auction (negative)

A. The case holding that, although the auction court sent the notice of auction date of September 17, 191 to the interested person as "A" on September 14:0, 191, it cannot be said that the delivery by mail as "B" cannot be deemed to be unlawful since it was not possible to send the notice to the interested person as "B" on the 9th of the same month because it was impossible to serve again as "B", which is his domicile, and it was impossible to serve as a long-term absence, if it was served on the 14th of the same month on the 14th of the same month.

B. The delivery by registered mail is a case falling under Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the delivery by a Junior Administrative Officer can do so and it does not require special permission.

(c) No ground for re-appeal may be made on the ground that there is a defect in the service of notification of auction date to other interested parties.

D. On the date of auction, it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the month officer did not create three times the successful bidder's address and did not create the successful bidder's address.

(a)Article 173(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 634 and 642(2)(d) of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Order 90Ma284 Dated May 7, 1990 (Gong1990, 1439) (Gong1439). Supreme Court Order 69Ma261 Dated July 3, 1969 (No. 17B citizen265) dated Jan. 16, 1980 (Gong1980, 1258) dated Nov. 10, 1990 (Gong1991,52)

Appellant 1 and 2 others

Incheon District Court Order 91Ra114 Dated October 22, 1991

All reappeals are dismissed.

1. The re-appellant 1's grounds for reappeal are examined.

In light of the record, the court below's disposition that dismissed the appeal of the same re-appellant on the ground that the appeal filed by the re-appellant 1 did not state the grounds for appeal, or did not submit a written reason for appeal, or that there was no reason to revoke the decision of permission of auction of this case, is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the Constitution or statutes that affected the judgment of the court below.

In this case, the auction court sent the notice of auction date of September 17, 1991 to the same re-appellant on the 14:00 on September 17, 1991, but the notice of auction date of Dobong-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) was impossible to serve again on the 9th day of the same month, and it was impossible to serve it on the 14th day of the same month because of long-term absence, Seongdong-gu Seoul ( Address 2 omitted). In this case, the mail was served on the 14th day of the same month, and there is no error in the notification of auction date. In this case, even if the service was made at the Seoul Dobong-gu ( Address 1 omitted) which was first impossible to serve on the 14th day of the same month, it cannot be said that the post was illegal, and the auction court did not serve on the 14:0 day before the date of auction. Moreover, the delivery by registered mail constitutes the case falling under Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it does not require special permission, and the re-appellant may not make the grounds for re-appellant for re-appeal for objection to notify of the auction date.

In addition, according to the entry of the real estate auction protocol of this case, it can be known that the name and maximum price of the highest bidder were created on the auction date of this case, and it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the month officer did not create the successful bid price three times or did not create the successful bidder's address. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

2. The re-appellant 2 did not submit the re-appeal within the prescribed period, and the re-appeal ground submitted by him does not include the grounds for re-appeal.

3. Re-appellant 3's ground of reappeal

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below rejected the appeal on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the re-appellant 3's incidental appeal did not comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the re-appellant 3's non-performance of his/her responsibility. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and in light of the records, the grounds for the appeal disputing the legality of the notice of auction date cannot be a legitimate re-appeal. The grounds for the appeal are without merit.

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

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)