Legal relations in cases where a debtor has submitted the original copy of the judgment ordering a temporary suspension of compulsory execution to an auction court after the decision of permission of auction was pronounced in the real estate auction procedure under the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201 of January 13, 1990)

In the compulsory auction procedure of real estate conducted under the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201 of Jan. 13, 1990), the successful bidder is interpreted to acquire ownership of the auction real estate when the decision of permission of successful bid becomes final and conclusive on the date of payment of the successful bid price on the condition of rescission. Even if the debtor submitted the original copy of the decision ordering a temporary suspension of compulsory execution to the auction court after the decision of permission of successful bid is declared, the decision of permission of compulsory bid is the subject of an immediate appeal, and the decision of suspension of compulsory execution is not effective to prevent the confirmation of the judgment or to prevent the effect of the judgment from becoming effective, so the status of the successful bidder to secure ownership by the payment becomes final and conclusive, the designation of the deadline of payment of the successful bid price, receipt of the successful bid price, transfer of ownership in the name of the successful bidder, etc. Thus, the successful bidder shall acquire ownership of the real estate lawfully as long as the decision of permission of successful bid becomes final and conclusive on the date of payment of the successful bid price.

Article 640 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201 of Jan. 13, 1990)

Supreme Court en banc Order 77Ma452 Dated December 19, 1978 (Gong1640 Dated July 22, 1983) 83Da40160 Dated February 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1032)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Daegu General Law Office (Attorney Gyeong-ho, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 92Na12603 delivered on January 29, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below. The court of first instance rejected the plaintiff's claim for compulsory execution against the non-party 2's embezzlement of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2's fidelity guarantor. On December 15, 198, the court of first instance ordering the plaintiff to pay 17,340,100 won and delayed payment damages (the appellate court ordered the plaintiff to pay 3,00,00 won and delayed payment damages. The judgment became final and conclusive on January 23, 190) on the ground that the above non-party 1's decision to suspend compulsory execution against the non-party 2's auction sale of the above non-party 9's real estate was no more than 9,000 won and the above non-party 2's decision to suspend compulsory execution against the non-party 1's auction sale of the above real estate was no more than 9,000 won, and thus, the court of first instance decided to suspend compulsory execution against the above non-party 13.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The judgment of the court below is identical to the theory of lawsuit that "the auction of this case based on the title of debt for which repayment was completed is a tort." However, according to the theory of family lawsuit, even if the co-defendant 1 of the court of first instance can be viewed as tort by maintaining the procedure without withdrawal of the above application for compulsory auction even if he received the repayment of debt as above, and thereby making the real estate of this case successful bidding to the defendant, such circumstance does not affect the auction procedure of this case, and the plaintiff can only claim damages against the above non-party 1, but it does not affect the judgment, so such illegality of the court below is not affected by the judgment, and there is no reason to discuss.

3. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)