The name of the auctioner and the reasons for the conclusion of auction and the refusal of auction, which the highest court did not create the price therefor.

In the auction of real estate, if the owner of the month notifies the termination of the auction without deciding the name of the highest bidder and the price thereof, it becomes a ground for appeal against the decision of permission of auction.

Articles 627 and 633 subparag. 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 33 of the Auction Act

Supreme Court Order 65Ma434 Dated July 2, 1965

Transfer Intervention

Supreme Court Decision 79Ma375 Dated December 26, 1979

The quasi-examination application is dismissed.

1. The quasi-examination of the applicant shall be examined;

According to the records, the decision subject to quasi-examination is clear that the first instance court's decision on June 12, 1979 notified the applicant for quasi-examination as the highest bidder, and then notified the closure of auction in 12:40 on the same day (record 212 pages). It is necessary to deny ex officio auction because it falls under Articles 635 (2) and 633 subparagraph 7 of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis in Article 33 of the Auction Act, and thus, the decision of the auction court's decision which allowed the auction is unfair, and it is unlawful, and it is clear that the first instance court's decision was reversed, and revoked the permission of the auction court's decision, and the auction of this case was rejected. Meanwhile, according to each criminal judgment submitted by the applicant for quasi-examination and submitted a copy of the records, it is clear that the non-applicant is also one of the above judgment of the Seoul High Court's original High Court's judgment which stated that "the above judgment was modified to 130 hours of auction (the above judgment was modified to 130 hours of auction)".

Therefore, since the above auction protocol, which was the data of the decision subject to quasi-examination, was altered, and the judgment of conviction was finalized, there is a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the decision subject to quasi-examination.

2. Therefore, we examine the propriety of the decision subject to quasi-examination.

According to the record, as the second ground for re-appellant's re-appeal of the above auction court's decision was pointed out in Article 33 of the Auction Act, the chief officer of the auction court can not find the name of the auctioner and the creative trace of the auction price under Article 627 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 33 of the Auction Act. This decision should be rejected ex officio as it constitutes Article 635 (2) and Article 633 (7) of the Civil Procedure Act which applies mutatis mutandis under the same Auction Act (see Supreme Court Order 65Ma434, Jul. 2, 1965). However, the decision of the auction court's approval of the auction and the decision of the court's original decision that allowed the auction shall be unlawful, and the decision of the court's approval of the auction shall be reversed, and thus the decision of the auction court's approval of the auction of this case shall be rejected. Thus, the decision of quasi-adjudication as to this conclusion shall be recognized as legitimate even if there is a ground for quasi-

3. Therefore, the motion for quasi-deliberation of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)