The illegality or illegality of the court below's dismissal of a petition of appeal on the decision of permission of a successful bid without examining whether or not the obligation to deposit the security has been transferred to the court below, and it cannot be said that it affected the result of the original decision. Therefore, it cannot be said that the original decision was a ground for reversal.

The facts that the presiding judge of the court below dismissed the petition of appeal against the decision on permission for the omission without examining whether or not the obligation to deposit the security has been transferred to the court below, and only the decision on the reasons for the appeal has influenced the result of the original decision, and thus, it does not constitute a ground for reversal.

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

Re-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 72Ra219 delivered on June 30, 1972

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. As the original decision of the court of auction (56 and 8) was confirmed on the record, it is clear that the original copy of the decision of commencement of auction and notice of date of auction for the re-appellant were served lawfully, and the service of the above documents against the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, etc., the debtor of the auction bond in this case, were not merely about the other's interest in relation to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the debtor of the auction bond in this case. Thus, the re-appellant did not have any error in the delivery procedure of the above documents. Thus, there is no argument about the plaintiff's appeal.

2. The records (Chapter 40) clearly show that this case constitutes an auction procedure stipulated in Article 5-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Loans in Arrears by Financial Institutions, so it cannot be said that the presiding judge of the court below erred in the decision of dismissal only as to the reasons for the appeal since there was no trace of examination as to whether or not the obligation to deposit the security of the legislative branch against the decision of permission of a successful bid has been transferred or not, which is the conditions for exercising the right to appeal. However, the illegality did not affect the result of the original decision of dismissal of the above appeal due to its nature (if the requirements for the appeal are not satisfied, it should be dismissed, but the appeal was dismissed). Thus, it cannot be said that it was a reason to reverse the original decision.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, the decision is made in accordance with Articles 413, 400, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)