The validity of a decision to suspend auction procedure to be made under the condition that the decision to permit the auction becomes final and conclusive and only the payment remains.

It can not be said that the decision of approval of a successful bid is invalid even if the decision of suspension of auction procedure is made under the condition that the payment is made only after the decision of approval of the successful bid becomes final and conclusive, and on this basis, if the execution court does not proceed with the procedure, the so-called execution method against the execution court shall be suspended until the payment procedure is made, the objection against the execution court shall be a pleading, and an objection shall not be raised

Articles 507 and 504 of the Civil Procedure Act

On Aug. 27, 1964, 64Ma500 decided Aug. 27, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 7999, Decision 507(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, Decision 65Ma1199 decided Feb. 20, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 7612, Supreme Court Decision 15°106 decided Feb. 20, 196, Decision 507(5) of the Civil Procedure Act, Decision 69Ma191 decided Jan. 21, 1970 (Supreme Court Decision 3825, Supreme Court Decision 18 ②4 decided Feb. 4, 198, Decision 31(4) of the Civil Procedure Act, Decision 782 decided Jan. 21, 1970

Appellant

other party corporation

Busan District Court Decision 73Ka3840

An appeal shall be dismissed.

The decision to suspend the auction procedure notified by the same court on April 4, 1973 to the compulsory auction case of the real estate 69Do856 of Busan District Court shall be revoked.

According to the records, the other party to the case filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim with the Busan District Court 73Gahap322, Busan District Court 73Gahap322, and filed an application for the suspension of the auction procedure of the 69T856 auction case with respect to the real estate recorded in the attached list that was previously finalized until the judgment was rendered. The same court made a decision that the plaintiff received the above suspension request on April 6, 1973, and the appellant did not object to the above suspension request and the same court dismissed the objection, and the same court rejected it again.

Although a lawsuit other than a claim under Article 505 of the Civil Procedure Act does not affect the progress of compulsory execution by the due date in the name of the obligation which has already been confirmed, the court of the lawsuit that deals with the objection may order the suspension of compulsory execution by Article 507 of the same Act, and the order of suspension is not subject to any objection by analogy of Article 473(3) of the same Act (Supreme Court Order 64Ma500 Decided August 27, 1964; Supreme Court Order 65Ma119 Decided February 20, 1967).

However, the appellant's compulsory execution based on the name of debt to the real estate stated in the attached list remains because the decision of permission of auction was confirmed on February 13, 73, and only the payment of the price remains. However, there is no proof as to this point. However, even though the decision of suspension of compulsory execution through the auction cannot be said to have the effect of suspending the auction procedure prior to the decision of permission of auction, and even if the decision of suspension of compulsory execution cannot be said to have the effect of suspending the auction procedure prior to the decision of permission of auction, it cannot be said that the order of suspension issued by the court of the lawsuit of the objection under the provisions of the same Act is naturally null and void (as alleged by the appellant, the decision of permission of auction becomes final and conclusive and the order of suspension was subsequently suspended after the permission of auction, but if the execution court did not proceed with the procedure after the permission of auction, then the so-called execution method objection against the court of execution shall be a pleading, and it shall not be an objection to the court of the lawsuit).

Therefore, even though the court below should dismiss the appellant's objection as against the judgment in which no objection can be raised, the court below's decision to dismiss it does not give any disadvantage to the appellant, and there is no benefit to make an appeal (Supreme Court Order 69Ma191 delivered on January 21, 197). Thus, the court below's decision to dismiss the appellant's appeal is delivered with the disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Seo-sok (Presiding Judge) Hun-Gaon Park Jae-joon