The effect of deposit for auction repayment made by the debtor after the creditor files an application for offsetting the amount of claim and the auction price as the successful bidder.

If a successful bidder submits to an auction court an application to offset the successful bidder's amount of money more than the amount to be paid as a successful bidder, the successful bidder shall pay the successful bidder's price in full on the payment date of the auction price, so the debtor's deposit for payment thereafter does not affect the validity of the auction.

Article 3(3) of the Auction Act

Supreme Court Order 65Ma73 Decided April 22, 1965

Re-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 65Ra441 delivered on April 21, 1966

The reappeal is dismissed.

Re-appellant's early ground for reappeal is examined.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

The facts determined by the court below are as follows. The non-party 1 (the successful bidder is the auction creditor) was determined to pay 102,400 won, which is the successful bidder, to the auction court after the decision to permit the auction of the real estate at issue was made. However, the non-party 1, as an auction creditor, is to collect 94,410 won (the fact is 15,00 won, and the part corresponding to 20,590 won was seized by the non-party 1 as the creditor of the above auction at the time of the above request, and the above non-party 1, as the auction deposit at the auction court at the time of the above request for auction, is not a set-off of 10,240 won, which is the above 60 won, which is the above 10,000 won, which is the first 6th 10,000 won, which is the first 6th 16,000 won, which is the second 16,000 won.

The order of the court below does not contain any error of law by misunderstanding the Auction Act.

(2) On the second ground of appeal, it is legitimate for the auction creditor to deposit the auction debt and expenses with the auction court on March 7, 1963, 09:05, considering that the auction creditor already filed an application for set-off as seen above with the auction court as the successful bidder, and this is the intention of not to receive the payment of the auction claim, and it is legitimate for the re-appellant to deposit the auction debt and expenses. This cannot be viewed as lack of the requirement of deposit. However, since the auction creditor filed an application for set-off with the auction court as the successful bidder, it is difficult to view that the creditor refuses to accept the change of auction claim because the auction creditor applied for the above set-off with the auction court as the successful bidder, it is difficult to see that the auction court did not pay the auction price due to the same day as 9:00 on March 7, 1963, which was 9:00 days before the date of payment of the auction price, the status of the successful bidder is unreasonable. However, as seen above, since the above re-appellant's deposit cannot be seen as the obligee's right to deposit.

Even if the court below did not decide on this point, this cannot affect the conclusion of the court below.

The order of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for repayment deposit.

As such, the reappeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

The opinions of involved judges are consistent with this decision.

The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)