(a) In order to file an appeal against the decision of permission of a successful bid in an auction procedure with respect to loans in arrears with a financial institution, cash equivalent to 3/10 of the successful bid price or securities as determined by the Presidential Decree shall be deposited;

(b) Even if a third acquisitor of the auction real estate was granted the transfer of rights prior to the date of auction, if such transfer had already been made public notice of the date of auction and the notification procedures to interested parties, it is not unlawful even if it did not give notice to that third party.

(a)In the auction procedure with respect to overdue loans, where the appellant fails to make the deposit within the fiscal period even after the order of correction of the security deposit is issued, the disposition rejecting the appeal is justified;

(b) Even if a third acquisitor of the auction real estate has been granted the transfer of rights before the auction date, if such transfer has already been made after public notice of the auction date and notification procedures to interested parties have already been made, it cannot be deemed unlawful even if it did not notify the third party of the auction date.

Article 5-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans by Financial Institutions; Article 641 of the Civil Procedure Act

November 3, 1965 65Ma1136 Order

Re-appellant

Seoul Civil History District Court Decision 70Ra678 delivered on November 20, 1970

The reappeal is dismissed.

The Re-Appellant's grounds of reappeal are examined.

1.In accordance with the records:

In the auction procedure of this case, which is an auction procedure for a financial institution's overdue loan, the appellant shall deposit cash equivalent to 3/10 of the successful bid price or securities prescribed by Presidential Decree in accordance with Article 5-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Loans in Arrears by Financial Institutions and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but the appellant shall not deposit the same order of correction within the fiscal period (Records 250). Thus, the appellant's rejection of the appeal is without merit and there is no fact that the above order of correction was received.

2. The Re-Appellant's third acquisitor of the auction real estate at the auction court on September 26, 1970, which was prior to the date of auction on September 28, 1970, did not notify the above auction date to the Re-Appellant who is an interested party and did illegal measures that were decided to grant the auction by going through auction. Thus, even if there is proof of rights such as the theory of lawsuit, even if there is proof of rights, it is after the announcement of the auction date and the notification of the auction date to the interested party, it cannot be said that the Re-Appellant did not notify the auction date (Supreme Court Order 65Ma1136 delivered on November 3, 1965). Thus, it is not justified because the Re-Appellant did not notify the third acquisitor of the auction real estate at the auction court on September 28, 1970.

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court