The case where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles under the proviso of Article 2 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for Loans in Arrears.

It is wrong to judge that a creditor financial institution requires a deposit of security without brightnessing the fact that the creditor financial institution was a financial institution to which the government invested or that the loan was made by the lending of the financial fund.

Article 2 (2) proviso of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans by Financial Institutions

Re-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 71Ra88 delivered on July 26, 1971

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

According to Article 5-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Loans in Arrears, a person who intends to file an appeal against the decision of permission of a successful bid in an auction procedure under the Auction Act on loans in arrears shall deposit cash equivalent to 3/10 of the successful bid price or checks issued by financial institutions and securities prescribed by Presidential Decree as collateral. However, according to the proviso of Article 2 (2) of the same Act, Article 5-2 of the same Act provides that the provisions apply only to loans extended by government-invested financial institutions, loans guaranteed by the financial institutions, and loans granted by government-invested financial institutions on behalf of financial funds.

According to the records, it can be known that the instant collateral obligation is related to the loan extended to the debtor by the Daegu Bank. Thus, the appellate court's rejection of the appeal filed by the appellant as in the instant case because there is no collateral deposit under Article 5-2, the appellate court's decision on the permission of the auction of this case requires that the creditor, the Daegu Bank, the creditor, in order to dismiss the appeal as in the instant case, is a financial institution invested by the Daegu Bank, or if not, the loan has been granted by the lending of the financial fund. However, even after examining the records, there is no evidence showing that the above creditor's financial institution was an investment by the government, or that the loan of this case was granted by the government with the lending of the financial fund.

Therefore, the presiding judge of the court below did not err in holding that the above collateral money is a case requiring such a deposit without clarifying the existence of the requirements for deposit. It is therefore reasonable to hold that the reappealing of the order to dismiss the petition by the presiding judge of the court below is justifiable.

Accordingly, the order of the original court shall be reversed for the purpose of making the original court more deliberate. This decision is delivered with the assent of all participating judges.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall be stationed in the red net scarbs;