[소유권이전등기말소][집28(3)민,88;공1980.12.1.(645),13284]
(a) Where there is no indication in the public notice report on the decision of permission for auction or the validity of the decision of permission for auction;
(b) Cases where documents under Article 510 of the Civil Procedure Act have been submitted after a decision on permission of auction for compulsory auction has been made and the validity of a decision on permission of auction;
1. The decision of approval of a successful bid takes effect by a declaration, so even if there is no indication of the time in the public notice report of the decision of approval of the successful bid, the effect of the decision of approval of the successful bid already occurred is not affected.
2. Even if the documents stipulated in Article 510 of the Civil Procedure Act are submitted after the decision of approval of a successful bid for compulsory auction, this cannot affect the decision of approval of a successful bid which has already been lawfully made.
Articles 638(1) and 510 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 77Ma452 Decided December 19, 1978
[Judgment of the court below]
Defendant 1 and two others, Counsel for the defendant Lee Jong-young and Lee Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 79Na2758 delivered on May 12, 1980
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's first ground for appeal is examined.
According to Article 638, Paragraph 1, Article 638 of the Civil Procedure Act, the decision of permission or non-permission is demanded to be declared.
In other words, the method of notifying this decision is required to take the method of sentencing in particular.
According to the facts established by the court below in this case, since the branch court of Seongbuk-gu Seoul District Court rendered a decision of approval of a successful bid on November 10, 197, 00 on the real estate at issue in this case, it should be deemed that the above date and time have already been effective. Therefore, even if there was no entry of time in the public notice report of approval of a successful bid, such as the novel theory, the validity of the decision of approval of a successful bid already occurred cannot be affected. Thus, the decision of the court below in the same purport is just, and it cannot be said that there was any error as alleged in the arguments.
Second and third grounds for appeal are also examined.
In the procedure for compulsory auction of real estate, even if the document stipulated in Article 510 of the Civil Procedure Act was submitted after the decision to grant a successful bid was made, such a reason is that the effect of the decision to grant a successful bid which was lawfully made cannot be the reason for the decision to grant a successful bid (see Supreme Court en banc Order 77Ma452 delivered on December 19, 1978). In this case, it is evident in the record that the reason for the lawsuit in this case was all made after the decision to grant a successful bid in this case was sentenced, as seen above, that such reason cannot affect the effect of the decision to grant a successful bid on the real estate in this case, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is just in the same purport, and there is no error as alleged in the arguments.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)