1. Article 258 of the Civil Execution Act provides for the following matters with respect to the execution of a request for the delivery of immovables. In executing the request for the delivery of immovables, where any movable which is not an object of compulsory execution exists, the movable property shall be removed and handed over to the debtor, his/her relatives, etc. (hereinafter “debtor, etc.”) (hereinafter “debtor”), and where there is no debtor, etc., the movable property shall be kept at the debtor’s expense (Article 3 and 4), and where there is no debtor, etc., the movable property shall be kept at the debtor’s expense (Article 5). If the debtor neglects to take it over, the movable property shall be sold in accordance with the provisions on the procedure for selling compulsory execution against the movable property

Article 258(6) of the Civil Execution Act does not limit a movable subject to permission for sale to a movable that is removed from and kept in custody by an execution officer. Thus, whether to apply it depends on whether a debtor neglects to receive it, and is irrelevant to whether an execution officer keeps the said movable. Therefore, even in cases where an execution officer removes and keeps a movable that is not an object of compulsory execution in the execution of a request for delivery of real estate, and where it is impossible or considerably difficult for the execution officer to remove and keep the movable in custody, and where the movable remains in the object of compulsory execution, it shall be deemed that the movable can be sold upon permission by the execution officer, if the debtor neglects to receive it.

2. A. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following.

The Republic of Korea filed a lawsuit against special appellants seeking delivery of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”), following the special appellants’ expropriation of the land and buildings on which the Special Appellants operated the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The special appellants received a ruling of recommending settlement from the court to leave and deliver the instant real estate until December 31, 2015, and the said ruling became final and conclusive. Korea filed an application for compulsory execution against the instant real estate with the title of execution for the said ruling of recommending settlement with the Daegu District Court Seo-gu District Court Branch Branch 2017No. 1690, the Republic of Korea filed an application for compulsory execution against the instant real estate as the title of execution. The same court did not prepare and execute a real estate delivery impossible report that it is impossible to find a place for storage of approximately 6,00 pigss located in the instant real estate because it is difficult for the enforcement officer to do so. Thereafter, the said court violated the requirements of Article 258(2) of the Civil Execution Act to grant special permission for sale of the instant real estate.

B. The lower court determined that the said decision on permission for sale was justifiable for the following reasons. An execution officer did not take any measure despite the fact that the custody of corporeal movables located in the instant real estate was practically impossible and the special appellant was urged to voluntarily receive them. In light of such circumstances, it may be deemed that the case where a special appellant neglected the receipt of corporeal movables, and the assertion by the special appellant cannot be accepted.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of violation of the Constitution and the law that affected the trial.

3. Since the special appeal of this case is without merit, it is all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)