According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on June 5, 1987, the court below, based on macroficial evidence, registered a voluntary decision of commencement of auction for the execution of the right to collateral security established previously with respect to the above ground-based factory buildings and machinery and equipment in the factory, Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, which was jointly owned with the above 168-6 1,147.1 meters (hereinafter "the site in this case"), and on the above ground-based factory buildings and equipment. Since the plaintiff purchased each share of the above site and ground buildings in this case on July 6, 1987 and completed a registration of transfer of ownership on the same day with respect to the above land and ground-based buildings, and the auction court issued the auction price in the above voluntary auction procedure on December 14, 1987, determined that the plaintiff's claim for the remaining surplus remaining after being appropriated for the secured claim in the above auction proceeds should be transferred to the plaintiff by the above 17-1 share of the auction proceeds in this case.

In a voluntary auction of real estate, any person who has acquired a right by completing a registration of ownership transfer after the entry of the decision on commencement of auction, etc., may not assert the acquisition of the right against the creditor applying for auction, but other participants in the execution after the entry registration, etc., and third parties may assert the effective acquisition of the right. Accordingly, the balance remaining after the secured claim, etc. out of the auction proceeds shall be delivered to the third party purchaser who made the registration of ownership after the entry registration. This conclusion is the same even if the third party purchaser fails to report his right to the auction court and fails to acquire the status as an interested party in the auction procedure. This is because the auction procedure does not confirm the substantive right, so the third party purchaser does not lose the right to receive the surplus of the auction proceeds because he did not report the acquisition of right.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and the court below did not examine whether the plaintiff acquired the status as an interested party in the auction procedure by reporting the acquisition of rights to the auction court, and there is no error of law in the incomplete hearing, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the delivery of the price of the successful bid or interested party in the auction procedure.

In addition, the judgment of the court below cannot be found that there are important matters concerning the interpretation of statutes, and the application for permission of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)