In the case of compulsory auction of shares in jointly owned property, if the auction procedure is terminated without notifying other co-owners of the shares, whether the decision to permit the auction can be cancelled upon the application for the completion of the auction procedure.

In the compulsory auction of shares in common property, there is a defect in the procedure that did not give other co-owners the opportunity of successful bid by failing to notify the other co-owners of the share, even if the permission of the successful bid becomes final and conclusive and the auction price is paid and the auction procedure is completed by the completion of the distribution procedure, the decision of the successful bid permission can not be revoked by the application of the co-owners

Article 649 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 69Ra64 delivered on July 29, 1969

The reappeal is dismissed.

The reasons for re-appeal shall be the Health Unit;

The court below held that since the auction court did not notify the re-appellant that there was a request for auction of the share of the non-party to the above non-party, the auction court did not notify the re-appellant that the auction court had held that the non-party and the non-party who was an auction obligor of the above non-party's auction, even though the peremptory period to file an immediate appeal against the decision of permission of auction was not attributable to the cause, the auction price was already determined and the auction price was paid on January 31, 1969, and as long as the auction procedure had been completed upon the completion of the auction procedure due to the completion of the distribution procedure after the decision of the distribution schedule became final and conclusive on March 20, 1969, the auction price cannot be revoked on the ground of the defect in the auction procedure. Thus, the court below's decision is just and there is no procedural defect in the procedure that did not give the re-appellant the opportunity to preferentially auction the share of the co-appellant, and thus, it cannot be denied since the successful bidder's application for auction after full payment and finally acquired the ownership after it.

Therefore, the reappeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng