[집행에관한이의][미간행]
Where the highest bidder fails to perform his/her obligation to pay the purchase price in the voluntary auction procedure and the re-sale procedure is conducted, if the court changes the minimum sale price ex officio due to changes in the legal relationship on part of the real estate, whether the former purchaser may seek the return of the guarantee for purchase
Article 113 of the Civil Execution Act, Articles 63 and 64 of the Rules for Civil Execution
[Re-Appellant]
Gwangju District Court Order 2007Ra271 dated July 9, 2008
The reappeal is dismissed. Of the judgment of the court below, the re-appeal is corrected to “ September 18, 2007” as “ September 21, 2007.”
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
In light of the fact that the guarantee system for an application for purchase is aimed at ensuring the propriety of the sale by excluding an application for purchase by a person with no strong intention of purchase, the buyer is not required to return the guarantee for the application for purchase in the re-sale procedure conducted because the buyer fails to fully perform his/her duty by the payment deadline, and the same applies even if the legal relationship on part of the real estate has changed in the process of re-sale and the court changes the minimum sale price ex officio.
In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below held that the Re-Appellant provided a guarantee for purchase on April 25, 2002 with respect to the real estate of this case (the total area of land is 2,244m2) and became the highest bidder at the voluntary auction procedure around 99ta466m2 of Gwangju District Court about the real estate of this case (the total area of the real estate of this case is 2,244m2) and decided to permit sale from the court of execution on May 17, 2002, but the court of execution did not fully perform the obligation to pay purchase price on April 10, 2003, which is the designated payment date. On May 24, 2003, the court of execution did not accept the Re-Appellant's new auction order after changing the minimum sale price of the real estate of this case from among the real estate of this case to the minimum sale price of the real estate of this case and rejected the re-sale order to the court of execution on March 24, 2004.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)