[1] In a case where an appeal is filed against the decision of the bidding court, whether the appellate court has a duty to wait for the submission of a written reason for appeal or to urge such submission (negative)

[2] Whether the public notice of bidding date is legitimate, which is different from the real estate indication (negative with qualification)

[3] The case holding that, where a real area of 1,507 square meters is mistakenly indicated as 15.7 square meters, the notice of bidding date is unlawful

[4] In a case where the public notice of auction date violates the provisions of law due to the mistake of the auction court, whether it is against the good faith principle to decide ex officio to refuse the successful bid (negative)

[1] In a case where an appeal is filed against the decision of the bidding court, the appellate court does not have a duty to wait for the submission of a written reason for appeal or to urge the submission thereof.

[2] The reason why Article 618 of the Civil Procedure Act requires an indication of real estate in the public notice of the date of successful bid is that the interested parties can be informed of the data to evaluate the objective actual price of the successful bid subject matter. Thus, if the indication of real estate is different from the actual one but it is not likely to hamper the identification of the successful bid real estate, and if it is sufficient to cause any mistake of the subject matter or to make an appraisal to the interested parties, such public notice of the bid date is not a legitimate public notice.

[3] The case holding that where a real area of 1,507 square meters is mistakenly indicated as 15.7 square meters, the notice of bidding date is unlawful

[4] Articles 635(2) and 633 subparag. 5 of the Civil Procedure Act provide that an auction shall not be granted ex officio when a public notice of auction date violates the provisions of law, and do not provide otherwise depending on whether the cause of the violation is due to the mistake of the court of auction or due to the mistake of interested parties. Therefore, even if the public notice of auction date violates the provisions of law due to the mistake of the court of auction, the auction shall not be granted ex officio, and therefore, the decision of the bidding court which did not grant the successful bid pursuant

[1] Articles 413(1) and 415 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 618 subparag. 1 and 633 subparag. 5 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 618 subparag. 1 and 633 subparag. 5 of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Articles 1, 633 subparag. 5, and 635(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 79Ma286 dated October 26, 1979 (Gong1980, 1233) / [2] Supreme Court Order 94Ma1453 dated November 11, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 36) 95Ma540 dated July 29, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 29855)

[Judgment of the court below] Re-Appellant (Attorney Kim Sung-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Order 99Ra3266 dated June 17, 1999

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In accordance with the reasoning of the order of the court below and the record, in the auction procedure on the real estate of this case, when the bidding court published the notice on the bidding date as of April 30, 199 in the newspaper, the bidding court made a public notice on the bidding date as of April 30, 199 by stating that the real estate area of this case was 1,507 square meters and was 15.7 square meters in mistake, but the appellant made the highest bidding, but the bidding court ex officio made the highest bidding, but the bid court rejected the bid price by reason of the defect in the public notice of the above newspaper. The court below rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellant merely raised the cancellation of the above decision and did not submit any objection, and even considering the record

In a case where an appeal is filed against the decision of the bid court, the appellate court does not have a duty to wait for the submission of a written reason for appeal or to urge the submission of the written reason for appeal. Furthermore, the issues in this case were clearly clear from the beginning that the decision of rejection of successful tender award due to the error in the newspaper publication was proper, and therefore, the court below's decision that rejected the appeal of this case without waiting the submission of a written reason for appeal more than one month after the submission of the written reason for appeal cannot be deemed to be an error of law such as infringement of procedural basic rights that could affect the outcome of the trial, lack of reason, or inconsistency with the reasoning.

In addition, the reason why Article 618 of the Civil Procedure Act requires an indication of real estate in the public notice of the successful bid date is that the interested parties can be informed of the data to evaluate the objective actual price for the specified object of successful bid and the object of successful bid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 95Ma540, Jul. 29, 1995; Order 94Ma1453, Nov. 11, 1994). Thus, even if the real estate indication is different from the actual one, if it is difficult to identify the identity of the successful bid price, and if it is sufficient to mislead or cause the interested parties of the fact that it does not interfere with the identification of the identity of the successful bid price, the public notice of the bid date is not a legitimate public notice. In this case, the fact that the area of the real estate is indicated as 1,507 square meters, which is the real area of the real area of the land, in the public notice of the bid date in this case, shall be deemed to be unlawful.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that maintained the decision of the bidding court that rejected the successful bid because the notice of bidding date in this case violates the provisions of law and thus constitutes the grounds for ex officio disapproval is justifiable. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of the Civil Procedure Act as to the notice of auction date and the principle of pleading by the parties

In addition, Articles 635(2) and 633 subparag. 5 of the Civil Procedure Act provide that an auction date shall not be granted ex officio when the notice of auction date violates the provisions of law, and do not provide otherwise depending on whether the cause of the violation is due to the mistake of the court of auction or due to the mistake of interested parties. Therefore, even if the notice of auction date violates the provisions of law due to the mistake of an auction court, the auction price shall not be granted ex officio when the notice of auction date violates the provisions of law, and therefore, the decision of the bidding

All of the arguments in the grounds of reappeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)