1. Whether the execution procedure should be suspended in the case where a document stipulated in Article 510 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act is submitted during the procedure of compulsory auction from the decision of approval to the full payment of the successful bid price (affirmative); and

2. Whether the successful bidder acquires the ownership of the object of auction in cases where the successful bidder pays the successful bid price in full after the auction court proceeds the procedure even though there are grounds for suspending compulsory execution (affirmative)

1. In case where a written statement under Article 510 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act has been submitted between the time when the decision to permit a successful bid was made and the time when the successful bid price is paid in full, the auction court shall suspend the execution procedure

2.In the event that the auction proceedings are conducted by the auction court, such as receiving the successful bid price, notwithstanding the existence of a ground for suspending the compulsory execution, the interested parties may raise an objection to the method of execution or by an appeal, but in the event that the successful bidder has paid the successful bid price on the payment date and the auction proceedings are completed, the legal effect arising from the act of execution cannot be denied. Thus, the successful bidder shall legally acquire the ownership of the object of auction.

Articles 640-2 and 510 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 146-3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure

2.

Supreme Court en banc Order 77Ma452 Dated December 19, 1978 (No. 263Gong326Gong1978, 11640)

Clinical Districts

[Judgment of the court below]

Daegu District Court Decision 91Na1973 delivered on January 15, 1992

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant will implement the procedure to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed under No. 11,855 on November 5, 1991, to the Daegu District Court with respect to the 1,230 square meters of the Cheongcheon-do, Cheongcheon-do, Cheongcheon-gu, Chungcheongnamcheon-do 840 square meters.

1.Basics

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-6, Eul evidence 3-4, and all the arguments in Gap evidence 3-4.

(a)The land was originally owned by the Plaintiff at 1,230 square meters prior to 840,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. On April 8, 1991, the land was filed by the Daegu District Court of the Daegu District Court on the part of the Plaintiff on April 8, 191, based on an executory judgment information regarding the claim for retirement benefits against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction”).

(b) Accordingly, the Daegu District Court, which caused the auction law, rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on the land of this case on the 9th of the same month and rendered a decision to permit a successful bid to the defendant on May 30 of the same year, and on October 1, 1991, designated the date of payment of the successful bid price for the auction case on the 7.10:00 of the same month.

(c)After the completion of the instant auction procedure, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed on November 5, 1991 by the 11,855 of the Yancheon District Court's receipt of the Yancheon District Court Registry as of November 5, 1

D.On the other hand, on the other hand, on May 30, 1991, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit other than the claim on the ground that the plaintiff paid all of the retirement allowance payment obligations ordered to pay in the above judgment with the other party to the same support. On June 3, 1991, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the above judgment against the plaintiff of the above non-party against the above non-party was notified of the decision suspending the above support until the court of first instance renders a decision, and the above decision was submitted to the above auction court on the 8th of the same month.

E. On July 30 of the same year, the non-party Park Jong-sung, the applicant for the instant auction, accepted a claim that the compulsory execution based on the judgment of the above retirement allowance claim as the plaintiff seeks with respect to the case of objection raised by the plaintiff on July 30 of the same year.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since he submitted to the auction court on June 8, 1991 the original copy of the decision to suspend the auction of this case, the auction of this case where the defendant, who is the successful bidder, did not fully pay the successful bid price, should be suspended, notwithstanding the fact that the auction court disregards it and proceeds the auction procedure as it is, the auction court disregards it as to the land of this case and proceeds the auction procedure as it is, so even if the above transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed, it should be cancelled

3. Judgment

Therefore, the issues of this case are as follows: (1) In a case where a document as stipulated in Article 510 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act ordering a temporary suspension of the compulsory execution procedure between the decision of approval of a successful bid and the full payment of the successful bid price is submitted, if the compulsory execution procedure is suspended in such a case, if the auction court disregards it and proceeds the auction procedure and completely pays the price, if the successful bidder completely pays the price, the effect of the auction procedure becomes null and void. Therefore, this issue is examined in order.

(a)whether to suspend compulsory execution procedures;

(1) Cases of compulsory execution under the former Civil Procedure Act

In accordance with the interpretation that the successful bidder acquires ownership on the date when the successful bidder acquires ownership before the Civil Procedure Act was amended by Act No. 4201 of Jan. 13, 1990, on the date when the decision of permission of successful bid becomes final and conclusive, the successful bidder does not pay the successful bid price. However, the status that the successful bidder is entitled to secure ownership of the object is already determined after the decision of permission of successful bid is made, so even if the document stipulated in Article 510 of the Civil Procedure Act is submitted to the auction court after the decision of permission of successful bid, it has been interpreted that the effect of the decision of permission of successful bid which has already been lawful is not possible.

(2) Under the current Civil Procedure Act:

However, Article 646-2 of the Civil Procedure Act, which was amended by Act No. 4201 of Jan. 13, 1990 and enforced from September 1 of the same year, provides that the successful bidder shall acquire the right to the object of auction when he pays the successful bid price in full. Article 146-3(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which was promulgated by the Supreme Court on Dec. 30, 191, provides that the documents under Article 510 subparag. 1, 2, and 5 of the Act shall be submitted before the successful bidder pays the successful bid price, and Article 510 subparag. 4 of the Act provides that if the documents under Article 510 subparag. 4 of the Act are submitted after the successful bidder files a declaration of purchase at the auction date, compulsory execution shall be suspended only when the decision to permit the successful bid is revoked or invalidated, or when the decision not to permit the

Therefore, in light of the amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and the rules of civil procedure, it is reasonable to view that the execution procedure is suspended in cases where a document under Article 510 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act has been submitted to an auction court after the decision of approval of a successful bid was made in the procedure for compulsory auction (this is consistent with the fact that the successful bidder does not have a position to finally acquire ownership of the object solely on the basis of the decision of approval of a successful bid, unlike the time of the former Civil Procedure Act, and that the necessity for protection of the successful bidder has been relatively weak.)

(b)Effect of any suspended compulsory execution procedure;

However, in the event that an auction procedure is in progress, such as the auction court's failure to suspend the auction procedure despite the existence of the grounds for the suspension of compulsory execution, and the payment of the price is in progress, interested parties may raise an objection or appeal against the execution method, but if the procedure is completed, the legal effect arising from the execution act cannot be denied. Thus, in this case where the auction court of this case does not suspend the auction procedure as above, and the defendant paid the successful bid price on the payment date designated by the auction court of this case and completed the auction procedure, the defendant shall be deemed to have lawfully acquired the ownership of the land of this case, and the plaintiff cannot seek implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration for the land of this case against the defendant who is the successful bidder on the ground of the progress of the illegal procedure by the auction court of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and this conclusion is just and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges 100 Man-day (Presiding Judge)