[집행에관한이의][하집1993(2),423]
Whether there is a ground for objection against the execution based on an order to deliver real estate issued without questioning the lessee who has the possessory right to oppose the successful bidder in an auction to exercise the security right to the real estate, the reason why the execution of delivery based on the order to deliver the real estate becomes illegal, without examining him/her.
In an auction to exercise the security right to real estate, the reason why it is unlawful to deliver and execute the real estate based on the order of delivery of the real estate issued without questioning himself/herself even though he/she is a lessee who has the right of possession that he/she can oppose the successful bidder in the auction to exercise the security right to the real estate, is that it becomes a ground for an immediate appeal against the order of delivery of the real estate itself.
Articles 504, 647(4), and 647(5) of the Civil Procedure Act
Kim Byung-gu
The petitioner's application is dismissed.
The gist of the reason for filing an application is that the applicant is against the successful bidder, who has a possessory right against the successful bidder with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list of the Seoul Civil District Court 91 other or around 27823, which is the object of the auction of real estate, and is residing in the above real estate before the seizure of the above case, and it is unlawful to deliver the applicant under the order of delivery of the real estate issued by the Seoul Civil District Court 93ta-3687 without questioning the applicant.
However, the above reasons are not allowed to assert as the grounds for an immediate appeal against the real estate delivery order itself, even if they were to be alleged as the grounds for objection against the execution of the order for the delivery of real estate. Furthermore, according to the records of the auction of real estate in Seoul Special District Court No. 91tagi27823, the above Seoul Special District Court, the applicant received the above order for delivery of real estate and filed an immediate appeal for the same reasons as the reasons for the application of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to view the second application of this case as the abuse
Therefore, the applicant's application of this case is unfair without examining further, and it is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition (attached Form omitted).
Judges Min Il-young