[1] Whether an immediate appeal against an objection to the execution method and a decision of dismissal thereof are unlawful upon the termination of a compulsory execution (affirmative), and whether the legal principle likewise applies to an immediate appeal against an order to deliver real estate (affirmative)

[2] In a case where an immediate appeal against an order for delivery of real estate was filed and the execution of delivery based on such order was completed, the case holding that no longer benefit exists to maintain an appeal since the above appeal is lost as long as the execution based on an order for delivery of real estate has already been completed

[1] Article 16 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Article 16 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 87Ma1095 Decided November 20, 1987 (Gong1988, 98), Supreme Court Order 2005Ma950 Decided November 14, 2005, Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1613 Decided February 5, 2008

Re-appellant

Gwangju District Court Order 2009Ra146 dated January 29, 2010

The order of the court below is reversed. The appeal of this case is dismissed.

An objection to the execution method refers to an objection against the execution court by a party or a third party who has an interest in the execution procedure only when there is a procedural defect in the execution procedure to be observed by the execution officer in the method of compulsory execution or the execution act. An objection to the execution method means an objection against the execution court, unless the execution court makes a temporary suspension of execution prior to the judgment, and an immediate appeal against the decision to dismiss the execution has the effect of suspending execution only when there are special provisions in the law. Thus, an objection to the execution method cannot be raised after the completion of compulsory execution, and even when the compulsory execution is completed when the case of objection to the execution method or the immediate appeal against the decision to dismiss it is pending, the objection to the execution method or the immediate appeal shall lose the object of objection or objection, and thus, it is unlawful without any interest in the appeal (see Supreme Court Order 87Ma1095, Nov. 20, 2005). Such legal principle likewise applies to an immediate appeal against the order to deliver real estate (see Supreme Court Order 90Ma505, Nov. 14, 2005). 2005).

According to the records, the re-appellant who purchased the building of this case in the auction procedure of this case filed an immediate appeal against the other party on March 30, 2009 upon receiving the order for delivery of real estate. The other party filed an immediate appeal against the above order for delivery of real estate on April 28, 2009, but the re-appellant completed delivery execution of the building of this case on June 9, 2009. Thus, as long as the execution based on the above order for delivery of real estate has already been completed, the other party's appeal of this case would lose the object of objection, and thus there was no benefit to maintain the appeal.

Therefore, the appellate court, which was the appellate court, should have dismissed the appeal of this case on the ground that it was unlawful because it did not have any interest in the appeal, even though it accepted the other party's argument in the grounds of appeal that it was reasonable, and dismissed the application for the order of delivery of real estate of this case.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient to be tried on the basis of the above facts, and the Supreme Court is determined as follows.

Since the other party's appeal of this case has lost the object of appeal due to the completion of the execution of the execution based on the above order for delivery of real estate, the appeal of this case by the other party is unlawful as it has no interest in maintaining the appeal, and thus, it cannot be exempted from rejection.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)