In a case where the execution court did not decide on whether to grant the highest bidder the permission of sale without any special circumstances, whether an objection against the execution under Article 16 of the Civil Execution Act may be raised (affirmative)

The execution court shall either grant the highest bidder on the date of sale or make a decision not to permit the sale (Article 126 of the Civil Execution Act), and when the execution court fails to make a decision on whether to permit the sale to the person who is obviously the highest bidder without any special circumstances, the highest bidder may raise an objection against the execution pursuant to Article 16 of the Civil Execution Act.

Articles 16 and 126 of the Civil Execution Act

Special Appellants

Jeonju District Court Order 2008Ra51 dated September 8, 2008

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Branch Eup.

The grounds of special appeal are examined.

A court of execution shall decide on the highest bidder at the date of sale to either permit or not to permit the sale (Article 126 of the Civil Execution Act), and when the court of execution fails to decide on whether to permit the sale without any special circumstances against the person who is obviously the highest bidder, the highest bidder may raise an objection against the execution provided for in Article 16 of the Civil Execution Act.

According to the records, on the date of sale conducted on February 11, 2008, the execution court of this case reported the purchase price of KRW 200,570,00 for the real estate in this case, and the person other than the appellant reported the purchase price of KRW 150,000 for the purchase price of KRW 150,00,00 for the non-appellant. However, the execution officer whose sale date was proceeded with the above sale date is erroneous as the "20,570,000 for the purchase price of KRW 20,570 for the non-appellant" reported by the special appellant as the "20,570,000 for the non-appellant," the non-appellant as the highest bidder, the 150,000,000 for the name and price of KRW 150,00 at the highest bidder's highest bidder's price, and the execution court only concluded the sale date without deciding whether to permit the sale with respect to the special appellant.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below, which is the execution assistant, shall decide whether to permit the sale of a special appellant who is clearly the highest bidder by correcting the error without being bound even if it was erroneous in the progress of the sale date of the enforcement officer, who is the execution assistant, and thus, the special appellant with respect to the court below which does not make any decision may object to the execution. However, the court below rejected the objection by the special appellant on the ground that it is not related to the decision of the court of execution, on the ground that the objection by the special appellant is not against the decision of the court of execution. Accordingly, the court below's measures are against the Constitution that affected the trial by infringing the right to claim a trial by

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)