The Re-Appellant 1's objection of this case is dismissed.

Each reappeal on the decision to permit the successful bid of this case is dismissed.

According to the records, the Re-Appellant 1 purchased the real estate of this case and entrusted the registration title to the non-applicant 1, who is the debtor. However, he voluntarily filed a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage to the non-applicant 2, etc., and received a favorable judgment in the court of first instance. At present, the court of first instance filed an objection against the decision to commence the voluntary auction (tender) of this case on the ground that the procedure of this case should be suspended until the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and the auction court dismissed the above objection on the ground that the above reasons alone does not constitute a justifiable reason to revoke or suspend the decision to commence the voluntary auction of this case. The court of first instance dismissed the appeal against the above decision to dismiss the appeal on the same ground.

However, in principle, an objection against the decision of commencement of the real estate auction (tender) by the court of execution may be raised only by the interested parties in the auction procedure, and even if the title truster of the auction real estate is the title truster of the auction real estate, he cannot be seen as an interested party before he filed a report on the right with the court of execution. In this case, even according to the above-appellant 1's argument, he cannot be seen as a legitimate interested party in the auction procedure of this case, and the objection of this case raised by the court of first instance and the court of original judgment shall not be seen as a legitimate interested party in the auction procedure of this case. However, although the objection of this case raised by the court of first instance and the court of original judgment shall be viewed

2. The grounds of re-appeal against the decision of permission of adjudication are examined.

In principle, an objection against the decision of permission for the successful bid of real estate by the execution court may be filed only by the interested parties in the auction procedure, and even if the title truster of the auction real estate is the title truster of the auction real estate, he shall obtain the registration of the recovery of ownership based on the final judgment and shall not be deemed an interested party before the execution court reports the right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 91Ma141, Apr. 18, 191). Accordingly, the court below's decision that the appeal of this case by the re-appellant 1 is unlawful is just and

In addition, the title truster's lawsuit for ownership transfer registration against the title trustee is pending in the appellate court on the ground that the auction real estate is the real estate held in title trust, and even if the above judgment becomes final and conclusive, the successful bidder shall not be affected by his ownership. Accordingly, the court below is just in rejecting the appeal against the re-appellant's appeal of this case in this opinion, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed without the necessity for determination as to the re-appellant 1's grounds of reappeal, and the decision of the court of first instance is revoked, and the decision of the court below is sufficient to be judged based on the facts established by the court below. Thus, the re-appellant 1's objection of this case is dismissed as it is obvious that the objection of this case is illegal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)