[집행취소신청기각결정][집34(1)민,183;공1986.7.15.(780),861]
(a) Method of dissatisfaction in a case where the execution agency continues to execute the final and conclusive judgment quoted in a lawsuit of demurrer;
B. In case where documents under Article 510 of the Civil Procedure Act have been submitted after the decision of approval of auction in the procedure for compulsory auction, the validity of the decision of approval of the auction
A. According to Article 511 of the Civil Procedure Act, if an executor submits to the enforcement agency the original copy of a final judgment which cited a suit of demurrer or that cited a suit of demurrer, the enforcement agency shall, if necessary, cancel compulsory execution. Thus, even if an executor filed an application for cancellation of compulsory execution with the original copy of a final judgment which cited a suit of demurrer against a claim by the enforcement court, such an application is merely the meaning of urging the compulsory cancellation of compulsory execution, and it is possible for the executor to lodge an objection against the procedure of enforcement when the executor of execution continues compulsory execution even
B. Even if a document under Article 510 of the Civil Procedure Act is submitted after a decision of approval of a successful bid has been rendered in the procedure for compulsory auction, such a reason may not affect the decision of approval of a successful bid lawfully made.
(a) Articles 511(b) and 642 of the Civil Procedure Act;
Supreme Court Order 7Ma452 Decided July 22, 1983, 83G24 Decided December 19, 1978, and 77Ma452
Special Appellants
Daejeon District Court Order 8.30 dated August 30, 1985, 85T407
The special appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of special appeal are examined.
The gist of the special appeal is that the special appellant in the process of compulsory auction as to the real estate of this case owned by the special appellant based on the executory exemplification of the judgment with executory power of the Daejeon District Court case No. 84Kadan985 case, and the creditor filed a lawsuit of objection against the judgment of the case of this case of this case of this case of this case of claim for compulsory execution against the judgment of the same court No. 85Kahap1476, which became the basis of the auction after the creditor filed a lawsuit of objection against the judgment of the case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of claim for the payment of the principal and interest of the obligation and the expenses of the auction, and submitted the original copy with the court's decision of revocation of compulsory execution No. 85Ka1476, which was accompanied by the original
However, according to Article 511 of the Civil Procedure Act, if an executor submits to the enforcement agency an original copy of the final judgment which cited a suit of revocation of compulsory execution or a suit of objection, the enforcement agency shall cancel compulsory execution. Thus, even if an executor files an application for revocation of compulsory execution with an original copy of the final judgment which cited a suit of objection with the enforcement court, such application is merely the meaning of demanding revocation of compulsory execution, and if the enforcement agency continues compulsory execution with the original copy of the final judgment which cited a suit of objection with the enforcement court, it would be able to be dissatisfied with the procedure of enforcement (see Supreme Court en banc Order 22 dated 1983 and 83Do24, July 2, 1983). Therefore, even if the court below did not need to render a judgment on the above application for revocation of compulsory execution, it shall be unlawful that the court below dismissed the above application even if it is not possible to lawfully submit the original copy of the final judgment to the court below as to the above decision of revocation of compulsory execution, it shall not affect the above decision of compulsory execution.
Therefore, this special appeal is dismissed without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)