logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1972. 8. 23.자 72마748 결정
[부동산경락허가결정에대한재항고][집20(2)민,182]
Main Issues

Any person who files an appeal against the decision of approval of a successful bid in an auction procedure for a loan in arrears to a national bank that is a stock company shall deposit the security in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Loans in Arrears

Summary of Judgment

In an auction procedure for a loan in arrears to a national bank that is a stock company, any person who files an appeal against a decision on permission for the falling of a loan shall deposit the security under the provisions of Article 5-2 of this Act.

[Reference Provisions]

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

Re-appellant

Re-appellant

Seoul High Court

Daegu District Court Decision 72Ra70 delivered on May 30, 1972

Text

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The Re-Appellant's ground for reappeal is examined.

It is clear that the National Bank Co., Ltd., the auction creditor of this case, is a financial institution invested by the government under the National Banking Act.

Therefore, the presiding judge of the court below, prior to making a judgment on the merits of appeal, shall examine whether or not a security has been deposited in accordance with Articles 2 and 5-2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Delayed Loans of Financial Institutions, and shall have the correction thereof. According to the records, the court below's decision is without procedure. Since such decision of the court below is illegal, the decision of the court below is omitted, and the decision of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division which is the court below.

The opinions of involved judges are consistent with this decision.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)

arrow