[부동산경락허가결정에대한재항고][집27(2)민,44;공1979.8.1.(613),11986]
The scope of interested parties who can file an appeal against the decision of permission for auction because they violated the surplus principle in the compulsory auction of real estate.
If all of the expenses of real estate and the expenses of procedure are reimbursed with the minimum auction price in the compulsory auction of real estate, if there is no surplus, the auction procedure shall continue to be held and the permission of auction shall not be granted. Since it is for the protection of execution creditors or preferential creditors, a debtor or a real estate owner who is not an interested party may not appeal against the decision of permission of auction of real estate
Articles 608(1), 616, 631, and 633 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee
Busan District Court Order 78Da154 dated January 29, 1979
All reappeals are dismissed.
(1) Judgment on the first ground for reappeal
According to Articles 608(1), 616, and 631 of the Civil Procedure Act, for compulsory auction, the court shall proceed with the auction procedure only when it deems that there exists surplus after the repayment of all the expenses and all the expenses of the real estate preceding the creditor's claim at the minimum auction price. Thus, if the court continues the auction procedure in violation of the above provisions and grants a successful bid, this would constitute an objection to the so-called auction permission in Article 633 of the same Act. In light of the records of this case, the sum of the auction price by the decision of the successful bid permission would be 234,342,480, while the sum of the expenses of the claims, taxes, and the expenses of the Japanese bank's mortgage claim and the expenses of the auction except for the above real estate is 25,568,246 (193,806,574+2,576,200 +20,814,240). Thus, the creditor of the auction does not have any right to receive any surplus from the court.
Thus, the Re-Appellants are all debtors in the compulsory auction of this case or owners of the objects of auction of this case, and they are not interested parties who can dispute the above mistake in the auction of this case. Therefore, the reason for the original decision is reasonable and there is no argument against this.
(2) Judgment on the second ground for reappeal
According to the records, in the auction of this case, the auction of this case is permitted by lots of real estate with ten parcels of real estate attached to the auction, and as a result, it is anticipated that the subsequent procedure is carried out by lots of land separately, but it is not illegal, but the auction of this case individually is limited to the court's discretion, and it is not expected that the original purchaser who wishes to purchase at one time as in this case is not expected to purchase at one time. Therefore, there is no argument about this issue.
Therefore, the reappeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)