A. Whether the designation of the date is valid, where the date of payment is designated before the decision to grant the successful bid becomes final and conclusive (negative)

B. Whether the effect of a successful bid can be asserted on the ground that the debtor, who is an interested party, did not notify the date of auction after the decision to grant a successful bid becomes final and conclusive (negative)

C. Acquisition of ownership of the successful bidder and the reason for which the judgment in favor of the debtor in favor of the debtor becomes final and conclusive after the decision of permission of auction becomes final and conclusive under the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201, Jan. 13, 1990) and the fact that the debtor is not entitled to enforce compulsory execution

A. In a case where an immediate appeal is filed by an interested party against the decision of permission of the auction court, and the decision of permission of the auction is not confirmed, the auction court cannot set the payment date, and even if the date was designated as the payment date as of the day before the decision of permission of the auction, the designation date is no longer effective, and therefore, even if the successful bidder did not pay the successful bid price on that date, the decision of permission of the auction does not lose its effect.

B. Even if the auction court did not notify the debtor of the date of auction, such illegality should be an objection to the decision of permission of auction, and after the decision of permission of auction becomes final and conclusive, the validity of the auction can not be asserted.

C. In the case of compulsory auction under the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201, Jan. 13, 1990), the successful bidder acquires the ownership of the auction real estate under the condition that the successful bidder will not pay the auction price on the payment date when the decision of permission of auction becomes final and conclusive. Thus, even if, after the decision of permission of auction becomes final and conclusive, the debtor receives a decision to suspend the auction procedure after the debtor's repayment of the obligation and filing a lawsuit of objection, and subsequently a decision to suspend the auction procedure, such as the designation of the payment date, etc., and the decision of winning the debtor's auction that the above claim is dismissed in the lawsuit of objection becomes final and conclusive, such reason does not affect the successful bidder's payment of the price and the acquisition of ownership of the auction real estate, nor prevents the auction court from receiving the price from the successful bidder by designating the payment date, but only

A. Article 654(b) of the Civil Procedure Act: Articles 617 and 642(c) of the same Act; Article 510 of the same Act; Article 640 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201, Jan. 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Order 67Ma498 dated July 14, 1967 (No. 15 ② 188). Supreme Court en banc Order 77Ma452 dated December 19, 1978 (Gong1979, 11640) dated July 13, 1982 (Gong1982, 866) 83Ma24 dated July 222, 1983 (Gong1983,1401)

Plaintiff Nambu General Law Firm, Attorneys Lee Du-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants (Law Firm Dong Dong-dong Office, Attorneys Lee Lee-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na2023 delivered on September 20, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) In a case where an immediate appeal is filed by an interested party against the decision of permission of auction, and the decision of permission of auction is not confirmed, the auction court cannot set the date of payment, and even if the date of payment was designated as the date prior to the decision of permission of auction as alleged by the plaintiff, the date is not effective, and therefore, even if the successful bidder did not pay the successful bid price on the date, the decision of permission of auction does not lose its effect.

In addition, even if the court did not notify the debtor as an interested party of the auction date, such illegality should be argued as a ground for objection to the decision of permission of auction, and after the decision of permission of auction has become final and conclusive, the validity of the auction can not be asserted.

The recognition and judgment of the court below in accordance with the above legal principles are just and there is no reason to argue that the court below is attacked against the opposite opinion.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in the case of compulsory auction under the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201 of Jan. 13, 190), which was enforced at the time of the auction of this case, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the auction of this case is null and void because, after the decision of permission of auction becomes final and conclusive, the successful bidder shall not pay the successful bid price on the payment date, on the condition that the successful bidder will not pay the successful bid price on the payment date. Thus, even if the debtor's decision of suspension of auction procedure after the decision of permission of auction becomes final and conclusive and the auction procedure is suspended, such reason is not affected by the payment of the price and the acquisition of ownership of the mortgaged real estate, and the auction court does not interfere with the auction payment date after designating the date of payment of auction price, and it does not interfere with the auction applicant's receipt of the price from the successful bidder. However, the plaintiff's assertion that the auction of this case becomes null and void since the auction execution of this case became final and conclusive by the plaintiff's judgment in favor.

The above judgment of the court below is just and without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)