Whether an objection is raised for substantial reasons, such as extinguishment of the secured debt, etc. by interested parties, after the decision of approval of a successful bid pursuant to the New Auction Act has become final and conclusive, after the successful bid price is fully paid.

In the voluntary auction, the successful bidder is the person who acquires the ownership of the object of the successful bid when he pays the successful bid price in full, and even though the interested person has filed an objection against the decision on commencement of auction, the suspension of execution is not effective, and since there has been no suspension of execution corresponding to the provisions of Article 484(2) of the Civil Procedure Act of the court of auction, the auction procedure is in progress, and if the successful bidder has paid the successful bid price, the debtor or owner may not dispute the acquisition of his ownership against the successful bidder

Article 3 of the Auction Act, Article 28 of the Auction Act

Park Chuncheon and one other (Attorney Park Jin-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Order 63Ra73 dated January 13, 1964

The re-appeal by the re-appellant state is dismissed, and the re-appeal by the re-appellant state is dismissed.

First of all, the re-appeal against the re-appeal by the Re-Appellant state is dismissed as the re-appeal period is too excessive and inappropriate, and the defect cannot be corrected.

다음 재항고인 박춘태의 재항고 이유에 대하여 보건대 재항고이유는 재항고인은 1961. 11. 11. 부터 등기부상의 주소인 서울특별시 용산구 원효로 2가 90에서 같츤시 종로구 효제동 318의 2에 이주하였음에도 불구하고 경매법원은 재항고인에게 모든 서류의 송달을 하지 않았으며, (재항고인이 목영국과 항고 신립한것으로 기록상 되어있으나 이는 목영국이가 위조한것이다.) 이 사건 경매부동산의 싯가는 450만원이나 되는대 10분의1에 불과한 54,000여원으로 경락한 것은 공서양속에 위배된다 함에 있다.

However, according to the records of this case, the decision to start auction of this case was lawfully served on May 16, 1962 on the re-appellant's family member living together with the re-appellant's family member on May 16, 1962 (the place of service is unclear) and the date of auction 10:00 on June 15, 1962 was served on the re-appellant's family member living together with the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 25, 1962, and the fact that all the documents were lawfully served on the re-appellant's family member with the effect of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 25, 1962 was not served on the re-appellant's family member with the reason that

Therefore, we decide to dismiss the reappeal of the re-appeal of the re-appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court