logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1973. 3. 20.자 73마66 결정
[부동산경매개시이의기각결정에대한재항고][집21(1)민,167]
Main Issues

(a) Where the owner of the auction real estate is a minor, whether the legal representative is not entered in the decision to commence the auction;

(b) Where the owner is different from the other owner at the time of establishment of the neighboring political party right and thereafter, who will be indicated as the owner;

Summary of Judgment

(a) Although the application for auction does not include a legal representative in the application for auction, there is only a minor indication who is the owner of the decision to commence auction, and even if the legal representative is not indicated, the decision itself cannot be deemed as an unlawful determination itself, so long as the owner of real estate

B. The Re-Appellant's decision to commence auction is justifiable, even if the Re-Appellant was not the owner at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security and acquired ownership thereafter.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 24 of the Auction Act, Article 26 of the Auction Act

Re-appellant

Person Re-Appellant

United States of America

Seoul Civil History District Court Decision 72Ra385 delivered on December 16, 1972

Text

The reappeal is dismissed.

Reasons

As to the ground for reappeal by a person with parental authority

In applying for auction, in case the owner of the auction real estate is a minor, it is necessary to specify the legal representative, and there is no legal representative's indication in the decision to commence auction, so long as the owner of the real estate can clarify it as the decision to commence auction even though there is no legal representative's indication, it cannot be readily concluded that there is an error of law in the decision itself. Even if the re-appellant acquired ownership but is not the owner at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security, it is legitimate that the re-appellant indicated the re-appellant as the owner in the decision to commence auction.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges under Article 413(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Yang Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)

arrow