(a) Auction and seller's liability for warranty;

(b) Requirements for application of the limitation period of one year for the seller's warranty liability.

A. In case where the successful bidder becomes unable to set up against the above provisional disposition right holder as a result of the acquisition of ownership by the decision of approval of the successful bid because of the fact that the ownership transfer registration has been made in the name of the above provisional disposition right holder, the successful bidder may rescind the above auction contract against the debtor. In this case, if the debtor has no ability to repay, the creditor who received the payment of the successful bid has the obligation to return the entire amount distributed to the successful bidder.

(b) The exclusion period of one year in respect of the seller's warranty liability shall be limited to the case where a part of the right which was the object of sale belongs to another person and thus it is impossible for the buyer to acquire such right, or to transfer it to the buyer by acquiring it, or to the case where part of the right which was the object of sale falls short of the quantity of the object of sale and the case where the superficies, servitude, chonsegwon, right of lease on deposit basis, right of retention is established on the object of sale,

Articles 573, 575, and 578 of the Civil Act

Kim Jong-su

Cheongju-si and one other

Cheongju District Court of the first instance (85 Gohap206)

All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The judgment of the court below that Defendant Cheong-si shall pay 2,171,238 won to the Plaintiff, and 24,156,428 won to the Republic of Korea, and 25 percent interest per annum to the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day on which the completion is completed.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff.

With respect to the non-party 1's claim against the non-party 2, the non-party 1 filed an application for compulsory auction of real estate at the court below 84 mp (number omitted) with respect to the five to 15.7mp (15.7mp (limited to the real estate of this case) of 345 mp (345 mp) Dong-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, which is owned by the Dongin-si, on the basis of the claim against the non-party 2, and as to this, the court decided to commence the auction on July 6, 1984, and the plaintiff received the decision to grant the successful bid of KRW 27,00,000 on September 20, 1984, and paid the above price in full on November 8, 198, and the non-party 1 paid the above price to the non-party 1,340 won on the same day.

If Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (a copy of the register) without dispute over the establishment, and if Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (a notification of termination of a contract), which is acknowledged to have been established by the whole purport of pleadings, are collected from the whole purport of pleadings, and the whole purport of each entry and pleading in the inquiry reply form and each fact-finding reply form prepared by the court of original judgment at the request of the court of original judgment, the court of original judgment on July 5, 1984, the decision of commencement of the above auction was made on December 12, 198, and the provisional disposition of prohibition against disposal against the non-party Nos. 3 as the holder of the above provisional disposition was made on December 12, 198, because the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the non-party No. 3 who is the right holder of the above provisional disposition, and the plaintiff loses its ownership due to the acquisition of ownership by the decision of permission of the above provisional disposition, the plaintiff cannot return all of the above dividends to the non-party No. 2 and the above auction contract.

However, the above auction procedure was lawfully conducted and the plaintiff knew of the fact that the prohibition of the above disposition was taken by Nonparty 3 at the time of the above auction, and thus, it cannot be returned to the plaintiff. However, a compulsory auction is possible even to the real estate for which the prohibition of the above disposition is already taken. Thus, even if the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid with the knowledge of the above fact, it does not affect the debtor's or the creditor's warranty liability. Thus, the above claim by the defendants is groundless.

In addition, the defendants argued that the above plaintiff's right to cancel the contract and the right to claim the return of the price are extinguished by the limitation period of one year. Thus, the limitation period of one year for the seller's liability for warranty is limited to the case where the part of the right which was the object of the sale belongs to another person and cannot be acquired and transferred to the buyer, or where the right is established with superficies, easements, right to lease on a deposit basis, pledge, or lien on the object of sale. In the case where the whole of the right which was the object of the sale belongs to another person and the buyer cannot be acknowledged to the buyer by acquiring the right, the above limitation period is not applicable, and the above limitation period is not applicable because the plaintiff loses all the ownership acquired by the decision of the above auction due to the lack of the plaintiff's defense against the above provisional disposition owner. Therefore, the above defense by the defendants is no longer necessary to examine further.

Therefore, Defendant Cheongju-si is obligated to pay damages for delay at a rate of 24,156,428% per annum from July 12, 1985 to June 3, 1986, with respect to the above money, as the Plaintiff seeks, from the date when the copy of the complaint of this case is served as a profit-making day, and Defendant Cheongju-si is liable to pay damages for delay at a rate of 5% per annum from the 11th of the same month to the date when the judgment of the court below is rendered. The Plaintiff is entitled to pay damages for delay at a rate of 25% per annum per annum from the date when the notice of complaint of this case is served to the date when the decision of the court below is made, but it is reasonable to appeal as to the existence or scope of the above obligations of the Defendants. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claims for delay is dismissed within the scope of the above special cases, and the remainder of the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

A case where a judge’s normal study (Presiding Judge) is removed;