logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1967. 7. 14.자 67마498 결정
[부동산경락허가결정에대한재항고][집15(2)민,188]
Main Issues

The validity of the payment of the successful bid price in case where a subsequent application is permitted after the payment of the successful bid price has been made.

Summary of Decision

Where an application for the subsequent completion of a decision to grant a successful bid made after full payment of the successful bid price is permitted, the decision to grant the successful bid price has not been finalized until the judgment on the application for the subsequent completion becomes final and conclusive. Therefore, the payment of the successful bid price cannot be deemed legitimate.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 654 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 34 of the Auction Act

Re-appellant

Re-appellant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 67Ra167 delivered on May 9, 1967

Text

The reappeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The re-appellant's re-appellant's ground for re-appellant

The original decision was made on November 26, 1962 that there was no immediate appeal from interested parties, etc. within the statutory period. Thus, the auction court shall be deemed to have decided on the successful bidder's bid price. Since the auction court designated 10:0 on January 23, 1963 as the due date for the payment of auction price, Dong shall pay the auction price in full on the designated date. On February 11, 1963, the appeal was filed by interested parties, and the appeal was made on February 11, 1963. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the appeal was groundless in this case as well as by other reasons, and the reappeal was also dismissed by the court of appeal. However, the appeal filed by the appellant on June 23, 1964 is also justified and it cannot be concluded that the appeal was dismissed by 100 on the ground that the appeal became final and conclusive on the ground that the appeal became final and conclusive on the ground that the appeal was not dismissed by 10 on June 23, 199.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro

arrow