[1] Whether the right to lease on a deposit basis, which does not fall under the right to lease on a deposit basis under Article 608 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act and the term of existence has not been expired, shall be deemed extinguished by a successful bid

[2] Whether the right to lease on a deposit basis, which aims at part of a building, is extinguished by a successful bid on the ground that the right to lease on a deposit basis, which is established later, becomes extinct due to a successful bid (negative)

[1] Article 608(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the right to lease on a deposit basis, the term of which expires within 6 months after the registration of commencement of auction, shall be extinguished by a successful bid. In light of the above provision and the nature as the right to use the right to lease on a deposit basis, in principle, the right to lease on a deposit basis, which does not fall under the above right to lease on a deposit basis and the term of which has not expired, and which takes precedence over the claim of the creditor to request auction, shall not be deemed to have been extinguished by the successful bid,

[2] Since chonsegwon which aims at a part of a building has an effect only on the part of the building which is the object, even if chonsegwon which aims at part of the building is extinguished due to a successful bid, if chonsegwon which is established later than chonsegwon was the object of another part of the building, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed to have been extinguished as well due to a successful bid until the subordinate chonsegwon which still exists.

[1] Article 608(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 303 and 318 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 303 and 318 of the Civil Act, Article 608(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Order 91Ma256, 257 dated March 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1269) Supreme Court Decision 96Da53628 Decided August 22, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2793)

[Judgment of the court below]

Eastern Construction Co., Ltd. (Attorney Ansan-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na31242 delivered on September 23, 1998

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 608(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the right to lease on a deposit basis, the term of which expires within 6 months after the registration of commencement of auction, shall be extinguished by a successful bid. In light of the above provision and the nature as the right to use the right to lease on a deposit basis, in principle, the right to lease on a deposit basis which does not fall under the above right to lease on a deposit basis and the term of which has not expired, and which takes precedence over the claim of the creditor to request auction is not extinguished by the successful bid, and it shall not be deemed that the person having the right to

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff's auction sale of the above real estate was legitimate by considering the plaintiff's right to lease on May 29, 195, the 4,5,6th, and the term of existence of the above real estate to the non-party 1's purchaser of each of the above real estate (hereinafter referred to as "auction real estate"), the period of 1's right to lease on a deposit basis as of July 31, 1996, the 6m2 of the above 1's second floor and the 9's second floor of the above 1's second floor and the 9's second apartment sale of the above real estate to the non-party 1's 7th of April 20, 196, the period of 197's right to lease on a deposit basis as 49.2m2, the 197th of the above auction proceeds to the non-party 1's auction court's 90th of the above auction proceeds.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of equity or the principle of good faith under Article 608 (2) of the Civil Procedure

The precedent cited in the ground of appeal is different from the case, and it is inappropriate to invoke the case in this case.

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

2. Since the right to lease on a deposit basis, which aims at part of the building, has an effect only on the part of the building which is the object, even if the right to lease on a deposit basis established later than the above right to lease on a deposit basis is extinguished due to the successful bid in this case, so long as the part of the building which is not the object of the above right to lease on a deposit basis (6m2 in whole and underground floors) is the object of the above right to lease on a deposit basis, the above circumstance alone cannot be deemed to have been extinguished as well due to the successful bid until the plaintiff still still remains the right to lease on a deposit basis.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)