Whether an auction court may decide not to grant ex officio a successful bid on the grounds that a tenant with opposing power has demanded a distribution after the bid date (affirmative)

If a tenant who has an opposing power before the successful bid date after the bid date, demands a distribution in the real estate auction procedure, there is a significant defect in preparing a detailed statement of bid items concerning the intention to purchase the successful bidder and the succession to the lease relationship that has an effect on the decision on the purchase price, and the decision on the minimum bid price that fails to reflect the lessee's demand for distribution, thereby making a decision on the successful bid ex officio is legitimate.

Articles 617-2, 633 subparag. 6, and 635(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff, Appellee] 97Ma1612 decided Oct. 13, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3737)

Eardoing fever

Busan District Court Order 97 Doz. 12155 dated February 24, 1998

The appeal is dismissed.

According to the records, in order for the creditor, Aju Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. to collect the loan claims against Lee Jong-ok, a joint and several surety and a joint and several surety, applied for an auction to exercise the security right on August 10, 1995 with respect to the subject matter of the bid in this case owned by Jeong-young, a person who has established the right to collateral security, on the basis of the right to collateral security. The court below decided to commence the auction on May 26, 1997 and ordered four times the bidding date, and failed to comply with the bidder's bidding although there was no bidder's bidding, and thereafter, on February 15, 1998, the appellant reported the purchase at a highest price of KRW 53,100,000,000, which is higher than the minimum bid price determined by the court below, but completed on March 26, 1992, which is the date of successful bid, and received the right to demand a distribution of the lease deposit at the court below on the same date.

With regard to this, the appellant who is the bidder at the highest price in this case filed an appeal against the decision of rejection of the bid bid, which seeks the cancellation of the original decision, but no appeal has been raised until now.

[However, in light of the fact that the court of original judgment rejected the successful tender for the subject matter of this case, "the tenant with an opposing power prior to the date of successful tender after the date of bid", it seems that the appeal of this case is unlawful in view of the fact that the appeal of this case was filed by the appellant, who is the bidder, with the highest price higher than the minimum bid price, by the fact that "the tenant with an opposing power prior to the date of tender after the date of bid, has a significant defect in the determination of the lowest successful bid price, that is, the decision of package deal tender price, or the preparation of a specification of tender items" under Article 633 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, as to whether the above reasons for the judgment of the court below ex officio can be seen as the reasons for refusing the successful bid under Article 633 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 617-2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the court of execution shall prepare and keep a copy of the tender items statement, which states prior to the bidding, the indication of the real estate prior to the bidding, the possessor and the title of possession of the real estate, the period for possession, the statement by the interested parties on rent or deposit, the statement by the interested parties on the registered real estate, the right or provisional disposition on the registered real estate, the effect of which is not extinguished by the successful bid, and make it available to the general public for inspection. The purpose of the provision is to accurately grasp the current status and legal relationship of the real estate subject to the bid, and to prevent unexpected damages at the same time as the applicant for the purchase, so if there is a defect that is inconsistent with the actual situation of the real estate subject to the bid of this case, whether the defect falls under the reasons for refusing the bid price and the intention of the purchase.

On the other hand, if a lessee who acquired an opposing power prior to the highest mortgagee of the real estate subject to bidding, files a report on the right and a demand for distribution in the relevant bidding procedure in the lease contract, the right to lease expires due to the successful bid, and as a result, the successful bidder obtains the real estate that has no burden on the right to lease. However, if the lessee fails to report the right and demand a distribution in the relevant bidding procedure, the right to lease continues to exist even after the successful bid, and the successful bidder is bound to acquire the real estate that has a burden on the right to lease. Thus, if the above tenant exists in the real estate subject to bidding, whether the lessee has reported the right and demand for distribution in the relevant bidding procedure is a significant factor affecting the decision on the minimum successful bid price of the

그런데 앞서 인정한 사실에 의하면, 위 노대원은 이 사건 입찰대상 부동산의 최선순위 근저당권설정자보다도 앞서 대항력을 취득하고 임대차계약서에 확정일자를 받은 임차인으로서 항고인이 최고가 매수신고를 한 입찰기일까지 원심에 배당요구를 하지 아니하다가 그 직후에 배당요구를 함으로써 위 입찰기일 당시 작성, 비치된 입찰물건명세서에 마치 낙찰인이 위 임대차에 관한 권리의무를 승계하여야 하는 것처럼 되어 있으나(기록에 의하면 입찰대상 부동산에는 위 노대원뿐만 아니라 장재신도 임차인으로 등재되어 있었는데 위 장재신에 관하여는 위 입찰기일 공고시에 입찰물건명세서에 보증금 등 임차권에 관한 내용 외에 1997. 8. 13. 배당요구가 있은 사실이 기재되었으나 위 노대원에 관하여는 대항력 있는 임차권의 내용에 관련한 사항만 기재되고 위 입찰기일 공고시까지 배당요구가 없는 관계로 배당요구가 있은 점의 기재가 없었음을 인정할 수 있다.), 낙찰기일을 기준으로 할 때에는 위 노대원의 임차권이 낙찰로 인하여 소멸하게 됨으로써 낙찰인이 이를 인수, 승계하지 아니하게 되어 결국 위 입찰물건명세서는 입찰대상 부동산의 권리관계를 제대로 반영, 기재하지 못하게 되었다고 할 것이고, 이와 같은 입찰물건명세서 작성의 하자는 앞에서 살핀 법리에 비추어 일반인의 매수의사 및 매수신고 가격의 결정에 영향을 미쳤다고 봄이 상당하므로 결과적으로 위 입찰물건명세서의 작성에 중대한 하자가 있다고 할 것이며, 또한, 원심법원으로서는 위 제5회 입찰기일공고시 최저입찰가격을 정함에 있어 전회 입찰기일에서 정한 최저입찰가격인 금 61,973,000원보다 금 12,394,600원이 저감된 금 49,578,400원에 최저입찰가격을 결정하였는데(이는 유찰시 적용되던 20%의 최저입찰가격 저감률을 그대로 적용한 결과인데, 위 입찰기일 당시 낙찰에 의하여 승계될 위 노대원의 임차보증금의 부담을 감안하면 실제적인 최저입찰가격은 각 입찰기일에 공고된 최저입찰가격보다 임차보증금 21,000,000원 상당이 많은 금액이 되는 셈이다.), 입찰기일 후 낙찰기일 전 위 노대원이 위 임차보증금채권을 기초로 배당요구를 함으로써 임차보증금채권의 부담이 소멸되는 결과 낙찰시를 기준으로 할 때 실제적인 최저입찰가격 저감액은 금 33,394,600원{금 82,973,000원(금 61,973,000＋21,000,000원)－금 49,578,400원}에 이르고 직전의 실제적인 최저입찰가격에 대비하여 최저입찰가격 저감률은 약 40%(금 33,394,600원÷금 82,973,000원)에 달하게 되었는 바, 이러한 결과는 신입찰시 시행하는 최저입찰가격 저감의 정도가 합리적이고 객관적인 타당성을 벗어난 것이라 할 것이어서(대법원 1961. 11. 3.자 4294민재항506 결정) 원심법원이 입찰기일 이후의 위 노대원의 배당요구를 반영하지 못하고 한 금 49,578,000원의 최저입찰가격 결정에는 결과적으로 중대한 하자가 있다고 할 것이고, 이는 민사소송법 제633조 제6호 , 제635조 제2항 소정의 낙찰불허가사유에 해당한다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that rejected the successful tender for the above reasons is just and unlike records, it is not possible to find any illegality in the order of the court below, and the appellant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yellow-type (Presiding Judge)