The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of misunderstanding the special case concerning the transmission principle concerning delivery in auction procedure under the former Auction Act by an application from a financial institution as prescribed by Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for

The order of the court below that held that the auction decision was unlawful on the ground that the auction court declared the auction decision on the ground that the auction court did not proceed with the auction procedure and sentenced the auction decision on the ground that the auction decision on the ground that the auction decision was illegal, without examining whether the owner of the real estate who will sell the real estate at the time of applying for auction as to the auction procedure under the former Auction Act, which was conducted by a financial institution under the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans, had to be served without being served to the owner of the real estate to be sold at the time of applying for auction.

Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans of Financial Institutions; Article 33(2) of the former Auction Act (repealed by Act No. 4201 of Jan. 13, 1990); Article 642(2) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201 of Jan. 13, 1990)

Seoul Trust Bank, Inc.

Gwangju District Court Order 90Ra22 dated August 6, 1990

The order of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined as to the creditor.

Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans of Financial Institutions (hereinafter referred to as the “auction procedure”) provides that “In auction proceedings under the Auction Act (hereinafter referred to as the “auction proceedings”) conducted by the court upon request of financial institutions, notification or service shall be deemed to have been served upon the delivery of the notification or service to the address (if the address is reported to the court, the address shall be the address) recorded on the relevant real estate registration injury at the time of application for auction, and if the address is not indicated on the real estate registration injury or the address is not reported to the court, the notification or service shall be

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending that the decision of commencement of auction procedure should not be served on the owner of the real estate to be sold at the request of a financial institution under the same Act, and it did not regard whether the auction court sent the real estate to the owner of the real estate to be sold at the time of application for auction procedure, without examining whether the decision of commencement of auction procedure was sent to the address indicated on the real estate register injury at the time of application for auction procedure. However, even though the auction court was unable to serve the decision of commencement of auction procedure on the owner of the real estate to be sold at auction, the court held that the decision of permission of auction in this case was illegal, since the auction court declared the auction procedure and the auction procedure was conducted against the owner of the real estate to be sold at the time of the auction procedure, even though the decision of commencement of auction procedure was not possible. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to delivery of auction procedure to the auction procedure, which was

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)