In the compulsory auction, the lack of notification of the date of auction to the owner and the validity of the decision to permit auction.

It can not be said that the decision of approval of a successful bid is null and void only on the ground that there was no notification of the auction date to the owner who holds concurrent office as debtor in the procedure of compulsory auction.

Article 617 of the Civil Procedure Act

66Ma227 dated May 24, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 14 ② ② 36, Supreme Court Decision 617Nu1628 dated March 24, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 216Da1666 Decided March 24, 1969; Supreme Court Decision 17Nu326 Decided July 21, 1971; Decision 71Ma513 dated July 21, 197 (Supreme Court Decision 9766 Decided 19Du217 Decided June 21, 197; Decision 617Da1063 Decided 1063).

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (75Gahap383 delivered on April 1, 200)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff delivered to the plaintiff the answer of 119-8 of the Doro-ri 119-8 of the Doro-ri, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do and the defendant declared provisional execution. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second trials.

With respect to the land stated in the purport of the claim, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the registration of ownership transfer has been made in the name of the plaintiff on the ground of the decision to grant the successful bid on August 30, 1974 and the fact that the defendant occupies the above land on April 25, 1975.

However, the above land is owned by the defendant, and the decision to grant a successful bid to the plaintiff is illegal in the procedure of compulsory auction against the above land at the request of the non-party National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, which is a creditor of the defendant, without notice of the auction date. Thus, the above transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff is registered as invalid. However, even if the plaintiff's assertion is true, the above decision to grant a successful bid cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the above decision to grant a successful bid as null and void.

Therefore, the defendant has the duty to deliver the above land to the plaintiff in the case of a principal case where there is no other assertion and proof as to the right to possess the above land. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the principal lawsuit is justified, and the conclusion is just in the original judgment. Since the defendant's appeal is without merit, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant.

Judges Shin Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)