[부당이득금반환][공1996.9.1.(17),2478]
In case where the successful bidder becomes unable to achieve the objective of the successful bid because he did not know the existence of the lease opposing the object of the auction, the method of remedying his rights.
Where the successful bidder does not know of the existence of an opposing right in the object of auction, if the successful bidder cancels the contract only when it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract, and if the debtor or debtor is not able to recover the whole or part of the amount, the successful bidder may demand the creditor who received the distribution to return the whole or part of the amount, or may demand damages from the debtor who did not notify the existence of the above defects in the object of auction together with the cancellation of the contract, or the creditor who applied for the auction with the knowledge of such defects in the object of auction, and it is not possible to demand the return immediately on the ground that the debtor or the creditor who received the proceeds of auction unjust enrichment from the whole or part of the amount of
Article 3 (3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, Articles 575 (1), 578, and 741 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and four others
Seoul District Court Decision 95Na49638 delivered on December 20, 1995
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff 2's claim against the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 4 of this case's non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of this case's non-party 4 of this case's non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of this case's non-party 2 of this case's non-party 1 and the non-party 4 of this case's non-party 2 of this case's non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of this case's non-party 4 of this case's non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of this case's non-party 5 of this case's non-party 1's non-party 2 of this case's non-party 4 of this case's non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of this case's non-party 5 of this case's non-party 1's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2 of this case's auction
2. In cases where the successful bidder does not know of the existence of an opposing power in the object of auction, if the successful bidder cancels the contract only when it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract, and if the debtor or debtor is not self-sufficient, the successful bidder may demand the creditor who received the distribution to return the whole or part of the price, or may demand damages from the debtor who did not notify the above defects in the object of auction together with the cancellation of the contract or separately from the termination of the contract, or the creditor who applied for the auction, knowing such defects in the object of auction (Article 3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, Articles 575(1) and 578 of the Civil Act). The decision of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, and it cannot be accepted that the debtor or the creditor who received the successful bid has unjust enrichment from the whole or part of the successful bid price equivalent to the deposit amount for the lessee who has the opposing power in the object of auction without cancelling the contract, or that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the liability for warranty, or by finding facts contrary to the rules of evidence.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)