[2] In a case where the previous auction records completed are substantially added for convenience in the new auction records, whether the demand for distribution in the previous auction procedure can be viewed as a demand for distribution in the new auction procedure (negative)

[2] Even if there are circumstances in which the appraisal report and the report on the present status of real estate on the auction records, which are virtually added and completed for convenience in the new auction records, are invoked in the new auction procedures, such additional auction shall not be deemed to be a demand for distribution against a separate auction case in progress, unless there are special circumstances in regard to a demand for distribution as to the completed previous auction cases.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court shall notify the interested parties of the auction date and the auction date (Article 617(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). The interested parties here refer to the execution creditor and creditors, debtors and owners who have requested distribution by means of executory exemplification, and the right holders of the immovables stated in the register, and persons who have proved their rights (Article 607 of the same Act). Even if those who have de facto interest in the auction procedure do not correspond to those listed in the provisions of the same Article, if those who have de facto interest in the auction procedure do not correspond to those listed in the provisions of the same Article, they cannot be deemed to be interested parties in the auction procedure. Thus, the provisional seizure cannot be deemed to be interested parties (see Supreme Court Order 68Ma367, May 13, 1968). It is clear in the language and text that creditors who have an executory exemplification that did not demand distribution

The plaintiff's ground of appeal on the premise that the creditor who has an executory exemplification that does not demand provisional seizure or distribution is an interested party cannot be accepted in other opinions.

2. On the second ground for appeal

A creditor with an executory exemplification may demand a distribution, and such demand for distribution shall be made until the date of the successful bid (the date of the successful bid), that is, the time the decision to permit the successful bid (the decision to permit the successful bid) has been pronounced (Article 605(1) of the same Act). Therefore, even a creditor with an executory exemplification has no right to demand a distribution in the distribution procedure unless he/she makes a demand for distribution by the date of the successful bid (the date of the successful bid). In addition, even though the already completed auction records are substantially added for the convenience of new auction records, and the appraisal report on the completed auction records and the report on the survey of the current status of real estate on the real estate in the new auction procedure have been invoked in the new auction procedure, the addition shall not be deemed a demand for distribution in a separate auction case which is in progress, unless there are special circumstances.

The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim to the effect that, with respect to the compulsory auction of the instant real estate in this case as referred to in subparagraph 96tadan10128 of the same support as to the same subject-matter of auction, the Plaintiff only demanded a distribution with respect to the compulsory auction of the instant real estate in which the Plaintiff had already been withdrawn on February 4, 1997, and it did not demand a distribution by the date of the successful bid: Provided, That the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim to the effect that, on October 10, 1997, only submitted the claim statement against the amount exceeding the amount exceeding the amount of the claim based on the title of debt in the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on October 10, 197, which was the date of the successful bid (date of successful bid).

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no illegality such as misapprehension of legal principles as to the dividend as alleged by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's ground of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)