[1] Whether an immediate appeal against an objection to the execution method and a decision of dismissal thereof are unlawful upon termination of a compulsory execution (affirmative), and whether such a legal principle applies to an immediate appeal against an order to deliver real estate (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that even though an immediate appeal against the order to deliver real estate filed an application for suspension of execution during the immediate appeal, the execution had been terminated before the suspension of execution, there was no benefit to maintain

[1] Article 16 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Article 16 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 87Ma1095 Decided November 20, 1987 (Gong1988, 98) Supreme Court Order 2005Ma950 Decided November 14, 2005

[Judgment of the court below]

Other Party

Seoul Northern District Court Order 2007Ra98 dated October 26, 2007

The order of the court below is reversed. The appeal of this case is dismissed.

An objection to the execution method refers to an objection against the execution court by a party or a third party who has an interest in the execution procedure, only when there is a procedural defect in the execution procedure to be observed by the execution officer in the execution method or the execution act. The execution period has no effect of suspending execution unless the execution court makes a provisional disposition on temporary suspension prior to the judgment, and even in the case of an immediate appeal against the decision of dismissing the execution, it is not possible to raise an objection to the execution method after the compulsory execution has already been completed, and even in the case of an objection against the execution method or the immediate appeal against the decision of dismissing the execution, even in the case of the termination of compulsory execution when the objection against the execution method or the immediate appeal against the decision of dismissing the execution is pending, the objection or the immediate appeal seeking the non-permission is no longer subject to objection or objection, and thus, it is unlawful as there is no interest in the appeal (see Supreme Court Order 87Ma1095, Nov. 20, 2005). The above legal principle likewise applies to an immediate appeal against the order of transferring real property (see Supreme Court Order 205, Nov. 14, 205, 20005

According to the records, the re-appellant who purchased the apartment house of this case in the auction procedure of this case has paid in full the sales price and applied for the order of delivery of the real estate against the other party on June 21, 2007. The other party filed an immediate appeal against the above order of delivery of the real estate on July 2, 2007 and filed an application for suspension of compulsory execution against it on July 13, 2007. However, on July 20, 2007, prior to the suspension of compulsory execution, the re-appellant completed delivery execution of the apartment house of this case on July 20, 207 pursuant to the above order of delivery of the real estate. Thus, as long as the execution based on the above order of delivery of the real estate has already been completed, the appeal of this case has no interest to maintain the appeal of this case.

Thus, the appellate court, which was the appellate court, should have dismissed the appeal of this case on the ground that it was unlawful because it did not have any interest in the appeal, notwithstanding the fact that the appeal of this case was dismissed on the ground that it did not have any interest in the appeal, it shall be deemed that the other party dismissed the application of the order of delivery of

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient to be tried on the basis of the above facts, and it is decided as follows.

Since the other party's appeal of this case has lost the object of appeal due to the completion of the execution of the execution based on the above order for delivery of real estate, the appeal of this case by the other party is unlawful as it has no interest in maintaining the appeal, and thus, it cannot be exempted from rejection.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)