2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in accordance with the Act No. 93527, Dec. 14, 2002, which was received on December 14, 2002, to the plaintiff as to the attached building.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties, or in each entry in Gap 1 through 7, and Eul 15 and 16, by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. On June 14, 1995, the Plaintiff leased a rent of 2,00,000 m2,000 m2,000 m26.1 m326 m2, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do, to the non-party jun-do, for a period of June 30, 200. The Plaintiff newly constructed the attached building on the said land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

B. On June 13, 200, the Plaintiff demanded that the building of this case be removed and the land should be handed over to the river trees. On July 3, 2000, the arable trees made a registration of preservation of ownership on the building of this case and the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation to the Plaintiff.

C. On May 29, 2002, the non-party lecturer filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff, claiming that the above gift contract between the plaintiff and the borrower was a fraudulent act and filed a favorable judgment against the plaintiff (hereinafter "the judgment revoking the fraudulent act") on May 29, 2002. The judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and the registration of transfer in the name of the plaintiff was cancelled on July 8, 2002 based on that judgment.

D. On July 11, 2002, an instructor filed an application for a compulsory auction of the instant building with the Ulsan District Court on the basis of the authentic copy of the "written decision in lieu of a "written decision in lieu of an executory power to claim the return of deposit money for lease of KRW 10,000,000 as to the water of the class and the water of the class on July 11, 2002," and the above auction court rendered a decision of compulsory auction as to July 12, 2002 by Ulsan District Court 17335, Ulsan District Court 2002, and the defendant purchased the instant building at the auction procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "the auction procedure of this case") and completed the sale on December 11, 202, and received the registration of ownership transfer on December 14, 2002 upon a request for the transfer of ownership by the court.

E. On July 23, 2002, the Plaintiff knew that the auction procedure of this case is in progress, and applied for a suspension of compulsory execution to the court on September 13, 2002, but withdrawn the application on the 19th day of the same month.

F. Meanwhile, on July 24, 2002, when the auction procedure of this case was in progress, the plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal against the above 2001Kadan27769 Decided July 24, 2002, and the appellate court revoked the judgment of the first instance on January 9, 2003 and sentenced to the dismissal of the instructor's claims. The judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

2. Grounds for the Plaintiff’s claim

On July 3, 200 between the plaintiff and the instructor, the contract of donation between the plaintiff and the instructor constituted a fraudulent act, and the judgment of the appellate court that revoked the judgment and dismissed the instructor's claim was finally affirmed as a result of the plaintiff's filing an appeal against the Busan District Court Decision 2001Da27769 Decided May 29, 2002, which ordered the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the building of this case is confirmed as owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the auction procedure of this case against the plaintiff's property owned by the third party is null and void, and since the ownership transfer registration made in the defendant future is registered as void without any reason, the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

The plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

A. Even if a lawsuit was initiated by service by public notice, the final judgment has a formal final binding force until a subsequent appeal is revoked. Thus, inasmuch as the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name was revoked by a final judgment of revocation of fraudulent act and the ownership of the building was returned to the name of a sub-party, and the auction procedure commenced, and the decision of permission for sale was confirmed, and the Defendant, the purchaser, paid the price in full and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the Defendant’s future at the commission of the court, the ownership of the instant building was lawfully owned by the border number, the debtor in the auction procedure, and no legal defect exists from the commencement to the completion of the auction.

Therefore, the auction of this case cannot be deemed an auction for the third party's property, and it cannot be deemed null and void unlike the auction for the property owned by the third party from the beginning of the decision to commence the auction, and even if the judgment to revoke the fraudulent act was revoked by the plaintiff's appeal for the subsequent time, the act of execution already conducted by the final judgment before that time shall not be naturally null and void (for the auction conducted without any defects, even if the enforcement title was revoked by the reversal of the judgment to revoke the judgment to suspend the retrial or the judgment to suspend the provisional execution, it is understood that the auction does not affect the validity of the auction even if the enforcement title was revoked by the reversal of the judgment to revoke the provisional execution (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Da16177 delivered on February 8, 191, or 96Da42628 delivered on December 20, 196, etc.).

B. Since the buyer acquires ownership of the auction real estate as the validity of the decision of permission for sale, unless the decision of permission for sale loses its effect, the buyer's acquisition of ownership does not affect the buyer's acquisition of ownership (Supreme Court Decision 4291Sang680 delivered on September 10, 1959).

C. Whether the instant auction procedure is invalid or not, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be permitted against the principle of good faith for the following reasons.

(1) The Plaintiff, without any consideration, received the instant building from the border water, filed an application for suspending compulsory execution with the knowledge of the fact that the instant auction procedure is in progress, and then withdrawn it, and did not take any action to suspend the auction procedure even until the sale price is paid in full.

(2) Even if the transfer of ownership by auction is the same as the sale in private law, the auction procedure is being conducted under the supervision of the state agency, which is the judicial branch, and thus, the high level of public confidence is granted. Therefore, the necessity and value to protect the public confidence therein is great.

(3) In the instant auction procedure, there was no defect from the beginning to the end, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff was entered in the building register as cancelled by a final and conclusive judgment. However, each lease attached to the report on a survey on the current status of real estate open to the public in the auction procedure, which was also set forth by the lessor, became the border road and the Defendant had no choice but to believe that the border road was the owner of the instant building, and there was no circumstance to deem that there was no negligence

(4) On the other hand, the plaintiff neglected to suspend the auction procedure of this case (in light of the fact that the sale price was paid on December 11, 2002 and the judgment of the appellate court on January 9, 2003, it seems that the progress of the auction procedure could have been postponed at least until the date of the judgment of the appellate court on January 9, 2003).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with the conclusion different, and it is so decided as per Disposition. The omission of the indication of the building

Judges Yellow-gu (Presiding Judge)