Whether a third party purchaser of an adjudication real estate may be an interested party in cases where he/she proves the fact while submitting a written appeal on the decision of permission for the adjudication to the appellate court.

After the registration of a request for auction, the person who acquired the right to the subject real estate (the third party acquisitor) shall register and prove the fact to the court of execution, which is an interested party and may be an appellant on the decision of permission of auction. However, if he/she proves the fact while submitting a written appeal to the court of appeal after the decision of permission of auction was made, he/she cannot be a legitimate appellant.

Articles 607 and 641 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 80Ma157 Decided October 15, 1980 80Ma157 Decided September 24, 1986 86Ma608

Appellant 1 et al.

Seoul Central District Court Order 1 October 2, 1987; 2.9.30, 1987; 87Ra648, Oct. 2, 1987

The order of the court below against the re-appellant 1 is reversed, and the appeal against the re-appellant 1 is dismissed.

The re-appellant 2's reappeal is dismissed.

1. The second ground of reappeal 1 is examined ex officio prior to the judgment of the second ground of reappeal 1, and the person acquiring the right to the target real estate after the registration of the application for auction (third purchaser) is registered, and the fact is proved to the court of execution as an interested party and can be the appellant against the decision of permission of auction as an interested party. However, in the case of submitting a written appeal to the appellate court after the decision of permission of auction was rendered, it cannot be a legitimate appellant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Ma608, Sept. 24, 1986; 86Ma608, Oct. 15, 1980; 80Ma157, Oct. 15, 1980; 80Ma157, etc.). According to the records, the second ground of reappeal 1 does not prove that the above authorized person was the holder of right to the ornamental number attached to the target real estate of this case, and it cannot be proved that it was an interested party in the auction.

Therefore, the court below, which held that the appeal of the re-appellant 1, who is not an interested person, should have dismissed the appeal of the re-appellant 1 on the ground that its defects cannot be corrected. However, the court below's order against the re-appellant 1 is dismissed on the ground that the grounds of appeal are justified. Thus, without examining the grounds of appeal, the court below's decision against the re-appellant 1 cannot be reversed.

2. Re-appellant 2's ground of reappeal

Pursuant to Articles 13 and 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, re-appeal as to this case can be filed only on the ground that there is a reason falling under Article 11 (1) above. As pointed out by the above re-appellant, the ground that the order of the court below erred in interpreting the statutory provisions does not fall under any ground of Article 11 (1) above, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for re-appeal.

3. Therefore, the reappeal 2's reappeals' reappeals' reappeals' reappeals' grounds are dismissed, and the order of the court below against the same Re-Appellant 1 is reversed, and this part of the case is sufficient to be tried by the party members, and

The Re-Appellant 1 cannot be viewed as an interested party who is entitled to file an appeal against the decision of permission of auction of this case as mentioned above, and such appeal is dismissed as illegal.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)