2. In the case of the auction of real estate rent in the Gwangju District Court 2012TTY 36102, the enforcement officer belonging to this Court authorized the disposition of which the officer of this Court decided on November 20, 2013 as the highest bidder.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the applicant.

In the case of the real estate auction in Gwangju District Court Decision 2012TTWT 36102, the disposition that the enforcement officer belonging to the above court decided on November 20, 2013 as the highest bidder shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal;

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked.

According to the records, the following facts are recognized.

A. On November 20, 2013, the Gwangju District Court 2012Hu36102, the applicant filed each purchase declaration with the bid price as KRW 4,610,000,00, and the respondent as KRW 4,600,00,000, in the auction procedure for real estate auction conducted on the land and its ground buildings, etc. of Gwangju Mine-gu ( Address omitted) and its ground.

B. The applicant filed a purchase report through a person other than the applicant’s agent. The date bid list submitted by the person other than the applicant was accompanied by a corporate seal impression issued as of October 7, 2013 only by the corporate seal impression issued as of October 7, 2013.

C. The notice of the date tendering submitted by the applicant stated in the column of precautions as follows: “If the bidder is a corporation, the name of the corporation, the status of its representative, and the name of its representative shall be stated in the name column, and submit a document certifying the representative’s qualification (such as the corporate registry

(d) An enforcement officer, on the ground that the representative was not recorded in the applicant’s bid list, and that the certified transcript of corporate register was not attached, the respondent was determined as the highest bidder except for the applicant from opening.

E. On December 23, 2013, the court of first instance rendered a decision to revoke the disposition that the respondent decided as the highest bidder on the ground that the applicant can prove the qualification of the representative under the corporate certificate of seal impression, and that the qualification of the representative can be verified through the accompanying documents even if the representative was omitted in the bid list and the applicant should be included in the opening.

2. The appellant's assertion;

The applicant has made an obvious error in entering the bid list, and the decision of the court of first instance is unfair, since the applicant fails to submit the certified transcript of corporate register as a document to be submitted in the relevant statutes.

3. Determination

Article 103(3) of the Civil Execution Act and Article 62(3) of the Civil Execution Rule provide that a bidder who is a corporation at the time of a date auction shall submit to an execution officer a document certifying his/her representative’s qualification. Pursuant to Articles 30(1) and 33(4) of the Guidelines for Handling Auction Procedure for Real Estate, etc., an execution officer shall ensure that there is no dispute arising from the defect in the qualification of the applicant for purchase by ascertaining whether the applicant is the principal by resident registration certificate or other document proving his/her status, or by a document proving his/her authority of representation, or by confirming whether the applicant’s capacity or legitimate authority of representation exists, and if the bidder is a corporation, it shall be excluded from opening opening unless the name of the representative is stated: Provided, That the qualification can be verified with a certificate of matters registered as a corporation, or where the rubber, seal, etc. can be signed and easily read, it may be included

Considering the following facts: (a) the principle of proof of qualification should be uniformly applied to a certificate of corporate registration; (b) the type of document certifying the qualification of a representative of a corporation is not limited to a certificate of corporate registration; (c) the certificate of corporate registration is a document verifying the identity of a representative of a corporation; and (d) the certificate of corporate registration cannot be deemed a document certifying the qualification of a representative; (c) the certificate of corporate registration is a document verifying the identity of a representative of a corporation and cannot be deemed as a document verifying the qualification of the representative; (d) in particular, the certificate of the seal imprint attached to the applicant can be replaced until the time of the tender conducted on October 7, 2013 after the lapse of one month from the date of the date of the tender; and (e) the certificate of the seal imprint attached to the applicant cannot be deemed as a document certifying the qualification of the representative at the time of the tender; and (e) the applicant's agent's qualification must be recognized as a certificate of corporate registration as stated in the non-

4. Conclusion

Thus, the decision of the court of first instance that revoked the above execution officer's disposition is unfair, and the respondent's appeal of this case is reasonable, so the decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked and decided

Judges Yellow-Pung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)