[1] The representative of a corporation dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act

[2] Where a person who does not have the authority to represent the debtor in filing an appeal, but the first instance court rejected a petition for appeal on the grounds that there is no provision of a guarantee in the appeal against the decision of permission for successful bid, and also maintained it as it is, the case holding that the court below affirmed the order of the court below on the grounds that the appeal is unlawful and the conclusion that the appeal was dismissed by the decision is justified

[1] Where a corporation is dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act, unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation or a general meeting of shareholders has appointed a liquidator, the directors at the time of dissolution shall naturally become liquidator, and where no such liquidator exists, the person appointed by the court at the request of an interested person shall be liquidator, and only such liquidator shall be an

[2] Where a person who does not have the authority to represent the debtor in filing an appeal, but the first instance court rejected a petition for appeal on the grounds that there is no provision of a guarantee in the appeal against the decision of permission for successful bid, and also maintained it as it is, the case affirming the order of the court below on the grounds that the appeal is unlawful and the conclusion that the appeal was dismissed by the decision is justified

[1] Articles 520-2 and 531 of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 642 and 728 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da22131 delivered on November 22, 1991 (Gong1992, 263) Supreme Court Decision 94Da7607 delivered on May 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1824)

Co., Ltd. principal business

Daegu District Court Order 99Ra310 dated December 17, 1999

Of the order of the court below, the part of the objection against the ruling on commencing auction is reversed, and the decision of the court of first instance as to this part is revoked. The objection against the ruling on commencing auction of this case is dismissed. The remaining reappeals of the

1. The objection against the decision on commencing auction shall be examined as to the same part; and

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below and the record, one auditor, other than the reappeal, of a debtor (re-appellant) dissolved under Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act, filed an objection against the decision of the court of first instance by asserting that he is the representative of the debtor company, and the court below affirmed the decision of the court of first instance on the ground that there is no error of law as otherwise alleged by the debtor in the decision of the court of first instance, and no illegality exists.

Where a corporation is dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act, unless otherwise provided for in the articles of incorporation or a general meeting of shareholders has appointed a liquidator, the directors at the time of dissolution shall naturally become the liquidator, and where there is no such liquidator, the person appointed by the court upon the application of an interested person shall be the liquidator, and only such liquidator shall be an institution performing and representing liquidation affairs of the company (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da7607, May 27,

However, according to the records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the debtor was appointed as a liquidator, the representative director at the time of dissolution on December 16, 1997, and the non-appeal 2 and the non-appeal 3, and that the non-appeal 1 was merely an auditor, and there is no provision that the debtor was appointed as a liquidator in the debtor's articles of incorporation, or that the general meeting of shareholders appointed the non-appeal 1 as a liquidator.

Therefore, the non-appeal 1 is not entitled to represent the debtor. Thus, the non-appeal 1's objection against the decision on commencing the auction of this case, which was filed on behalf of the debtor, shall be dismissed as it was raised by a person without authority, and thus, the court of first instance and the court below's decision which judged the propriety of the objection shall not be maintained as it is unlawful and it cannot be maintained

2. The following decisions on the permission of successful tender shall be examined:

According to the records, non-appeal 1 filed an appeal as to the decision to permit the successful bid at the court of first instance along with an objection to the decision to permit the successful bid at the court of first instance. This appeal is also filed by a person who has no authority to represent the debtor, and thus illegal and illegal. However, according to the reasoning of the first instance court and the court of first instance, the court of first instance stated that the appeal was dismissed on the ground that cash or securities pursuant to Article 642(4) of the Civil Procedure Act were not deposited in this appeal (the order and reasons of the decision, stated that the appeal was dismissed) and the court of first instance also maintained it as it is. Although the reasons different, it is reasonable for the court of first instance to maintain it as it is, because the appeal filed by non-appeal 1 itself, which was dismissed by the decision, on the ground that it was unlawful.

3. Therefore, the part of the order of the court below regarding an objection against the decision on commencing auction among the judgments of the court below is reversed, and this part of the case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to judge. Thus, the decision of the court of first instance as to this part is revoked, and the objection against the decision on commencing auction of this case is dismissed, and the remainder of the reappeal is dismissed.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)