If promoters of a company under incorporation participate in the auction procedure under the name of the company and the peremptory notice of the company is called as auctionor without examining the qualifications of the person who reported the auction (negative)

Even if promoters of a company under incorporation were to be the auction on the date of auction in the capacity of representative director of the company before the date of registration of incorporation of the company concerned, and the highest price for the company which did not exist at the time due to failure to examine the qualification of the reporter of the auction, and the highest price for the company which did not exist at the time was named as the auction, auction is a form of contract premised on a large number of competitive offers, and auction is in the form of contract under which the legal nature of the auction is based on the premise of a large number of competitive offers, and thus it is difficult to predict the successful bid price or the successful bidder even with the applicant of the auction, the act

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Limited Liability Company Multi-Food

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Park Jong-won, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Gwangju High Court Decision 88Na2150 decided September 21, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

According to the facts established by the court below, although defendant 2 was a promoter of a company under incorporation, he was the highest auction on the second auction date of the court's second auction which was conducted before the date of registration of incorporation of the company under incorporation, and the defendant 2 became the highest auction on the date of the above company's second auction, which was the procedure subject of the above auction date, whose highest price was named as the auction reporter, and the non-party, who was the procedure subject of the above auction date, decided that the highest price of the company which did not exist at the time of failure to examine the qualification of the auction reporter, was the highest price for the company which was not existed as the auction agent, and the auction procedure of this case is referred to as the highest price for the company which was not existing at the time of failure. Thus, since the legal nature of the auction as in this case is a form of contract which is the premise of multiple competitive subscription, the auction price or the successful bidder cannot be predicted even with the request for auction as well as the above, the court below's act of

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)