[1] The elements to claim the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the object of auction on the ground that the auction procedure is invalid on the ground that it is an auction based on an invalid notarial deed, and to claim a cancellation of the ownership transfer registration on the object of auction

[2] The case holding that a claim for cancellation of transfer of ownership on the object of auction does not violate the principle of good faith and the principle of good faith on the ground that a notarial deed cannot be seen as being seen as being effective to the successful bidder merely because the notarial deed was not submitted to the execution court despite filing a lawsuit of objection against the execution creditor and received a decision of suspension of compulsory execution

[1] In a case where an auction procedure is deemed null and void on the ground that the auction procedure is an auction based on an invalid notarial deed, and thus a request for cancellation of ownership transfer registration as to the subject matter of the auction is made in violation of the principle of speech and good faith, and thus, it cannot be permitted, the person indicated as the execution obligor on the invalid notarial deed has neglected the auction procedure without all of such assertion despite the fact that it was possible to prevent the auction procedure from claiming the invalidation of the notarial deed while the auction procedure is in progress in the name of the debtor, and instead, it should be said that the notarial deed has neglected it without all of such assertion. Rather, it should be said that the notarial deed claims repayment on the premise that the validity of the notarial deed is valid and takes a procedure of appeal as to the decision of permission for the auction, etc., and received the dividend on the date of distribution without objection, and voluntarily ordered the successful bidder to receive the expenses from the

[2] The case holding that a claim for cancellation of transfer of ownership on the object of auction does not violate the principle of good faith and the principle of good faith on the ground that a notarial deed cannot be seen as being seen as being effective to the successful bidder merely because it was not submitted to the court of execution despite filing a lawsuit of objection against the execution creditor and receiving a decision of suspension of compulsory execution

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 69Da1228 delivered on June 5, 1973 (No. 21-2, 45) Supreme Court Decision 92Da7726 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2557), Supreme Court Decision 93Da42603 delivered on December 24, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 503)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 99Na357 delivered on April 23, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

In a case where an auction procedure is deemed null and void on the ground that it is an auction based on an invalid notarial deed and requests the cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the subject matter of auction, if it is deemed null and void, the person indicated as an execution obligor on the invalid notarial deed would not be permitted on the grounds that it violates the principle of speech and good faith, and thus would violate the principle of trust and good faith, and thus, would not be permitted, notwithstanding the fact that the auction procedure could have been avoided by asserting the invalidation of the notarial deed in the name of the debtor, it was neglected without all such assertion, and rather, the procedure of appeal against the decision on the permission of auction by asserting the repayment on the premise that the notarial deed is valid, takes the procedure of appeal on the premise that the notarial deed is valid, and instead, it should be said that the successful bidder received his dividends on the date of distribution without objection, and voluntarily ordered the successful bidder to receive the real estate on the date of distribution and arbitrarily ordered the notarial deed to the effect that the notarial deed is valid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da324236363, Dec.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of objection against the non-party, who is the enforcement creditor, and received a decision of suspension of compulsory execution when the auction procedure is in progress on the real estate in the name of the plaintiff under the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim cannot be deemed as a successful bidder, and even if it was not submitted to the court of execution, such circumstance alone does not lead to the plaintiff's trust that the above notarial deed is valid. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff voluntarily ordered the real estate in this case cannot be considered as being asserted only when the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff voluntarily ordered the real estate in this case was raised in the trial, and there

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)