Cases where there is an error of law in determining that an objection under Article 633 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act is not a ground for objection although a certificate of repayment, which can be seen as a certificate under Article 510 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act

In the event that the certificate of performance corresponding to the certificate under Article 510 subparagraph 4 of this Act is submitted along with a written reason for appeal against the decision of approval of a successful bid, compulsory execution shall be suspended, so this constitutes a reason for not continuing compulsory execution under subparagraph 1 of this Article (the change of the decision in question to the en banc Order 77 US452 delivered on December 19, 78).

Article 510 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act No. 633 subparag. 1

Kim Young-le

Busan District Court Decision 65Ra115 delivered on June 25, 1965

The original decision is reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds for re-appeal of the re-appellant are examined.

According to the original decision, the court below rejected the appeal on the ground that the compulsory auction of this case cannot be continued since the appellant repaid the full amount of this case to Kim Dong-dong, a creditor of April 28, 1965, and even if the claim under the judgment finalized as a false name of debt is extinguished by repayment of obligation, its executory power is not naturally lost unless a lawsuit of objection as to the claim is filed to exclude the executory power of the name of debt, and it does not constitute a legitimate reason for appeal under Article 633 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, according to the records, the appellant submitted the certificate of repayment in the name of the obligee Kim Dong-dong, such as the written reason for appeal stating the above purport, and if the certificate is true, it is obvious that it can be seen as the certificate under Article 510 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the court below which received the certificate shall suspend enforcement and therefore, even though there are grounds for not continuing compulsory execution under Article 633 subparag. 1 of the same Act, the court below did not err by misapprehending that it does not constitute grounds for objection under Article 633 subparag. 1 of the same Act, and the arguments are well-grounded.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges in accordance with Articles 413(2) and 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu