Whether a creditor who demands distribution by means of a copy of an original copy not itself, in a title of debt or a copy of a title of debt for which no execution clause is attached with respect to a title of debt that requires an execution clause, constitutes "creditor who demands distribution by an executory exemplification" among persons interested in the auction procedure (negative)

Article 607 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) stipulates that creditors who have requested distribution by an executory exemplification as one of the interested parties in the auction procedure shall be entitled to the interests in the auction procedure. The term "legal executory exemplification" refers to the authentic copy of a title of debt with execution clause attached in case of a title of debt for which an execution clause is required, such as the judgment. Thus, a creditor who has requested distribution by a copy of an authentic title of debt or a title of debt with no execution clause is not an interested party.

Article 607 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) (see current Article 90 of the Civil Execution Act)

Re-appellant

Seoul District Court Order 2002Ra1241 dated June 20, 2002

The reappeal is dismissed.

Article 607 of the former Civil Procedure Act (Article 90 of the current Civil Execution Act) stipulates that a creditor who has requested distribution with an executory exemplification as one of the interested parties in the auction procedure. "An executory exemplification" refers to the authentic copy of a title of debt with execution clause attached to a title of debt for which an execution clause is required, such as a judgment. As such, a creditor who has requested distribution by means of a copy of an authentic title of a title of debt or a title of debt with no executory exemplification does not constitute an interested party.

According to the records, the re-appellant requested distribution by a copy of the original copy of the judgment with no execution clause attached in the demand for distribution on January 10, 2002, which is prior to the successful bid date of this case (the original copy of the judgment submitted at the time of the appeal of this case is only a copy of the statement that the execution clause was granted to the original copy of the judgment which is not attached (the original copy of the judgment submitted at the time of the appeal of this case, but does not include the execution clause in the end of the final decision). The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)