The public notice of the auction date according to the investigation and report on collection of the amount of the auction land shall not have an effect on the result of the auction if the amount of the public notice stated in the certificate of property tax is the same as that of the house-raising investigation.

B. In the public notice of auction date, the public notice was erroneously stated as KRW 10,000,000 that the notice amount should be stated as KRW 10,028.

Even if the difference is minor, it is not deemed that the requirements of Article 618 of the Civil Procedure Act are not stated.

The public notice of the auction date according to the investigation and report on collection of the amount of the auction land shall have no effect on the result of the auction if the amount of the public notice stated in the certificate of property tax is the same as that of the house delivery investigation.

Article 602 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 618 of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 24(4) of the Auction Act), Article 6334 of the Civil Procedure Act

Appellant 1 et al.

Seoul Civil History District Court Decision 70Ra252 delivered on May 18, 1971

Each reappeal shall be dismissed.

No. 1 of the grounds for re-appeal

When comprehensively reviewing each evidence cited in the original decision based on the record, the auction court sent the notice of auction date 10:00 on March 19, 1970 to Dong Kim C, who is the same reporter, at the time of the auction court's notice of auction date 10:00 on March 19, 1970, to Dong Kim C, who is the same reporter at the time of the time of the auction court's notice of auction date, but it can be recognized that the documents were lawfully served at the place of the submission. Thus, the original decision of the court

No. 2 of the grounds for re-appeal

The auction court stated the public notice of the auction date in accordance with the investigation and report of collection of the public amount of the auction land. However, according to the certificate of property tax (178) submitted by the creditor, it is identical to the public notice of the auction land stated in the certificate as 10,028 won, so the above error does not affect the result of the auction. The next public notice of the auction date is to inform the applicant for the auction of this fact and to refer it to 10,028 won to the determination of the standard of the auction price. Thus, even if the public notice of the auction date stated the difference as 10,000 won, it is erroneous that the public notice and amount should be stated as 10,000 won, and it is not deemed that the difference did not state the requirements stipulated in Article 618 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is not reasonable to revoke the original decision as a reason.

The grounds of reappeal No. 3 are examined;

The auction court set the minimum auction price of the land in this case at KRW 8,520,00, but did not report the auction price on November 13, 1969 on the auction date. Thus, the auction price at KRW 5,964,000 was reduced to KRW 5,964,000, and the auction price was at KRW 6,000 from the auction on December 11, 1969 and the auction permission was decided on December 30, 1969. However, since the auction court revoked the auction permission on the ground that there was a fault in indicating co-owner's share in the entry in the decision of the auction permission due to appeal, the auction court again conducted the auction with the lowest price at KRW 5,964,00,00, there was no error of law, and therefore there is no ground

Therefore, each reappeal's reappeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu