Where an objection is filed against the decision to commence an auction, but no provisional disposition to suspend the execution corresponding to Article 484(2) of the Civil Procedure Act is issued, whether the ownership of the light or light real estate, the proceeds of the auction of which are paid in full, is acquired lawfully.

Even if the successful bidder does not issue an order of provisional disposition, even if he/she has deposited the mortgaged debt, etc. and raised an objection against the decision of commencement of auction, the successful bidder shall acquire the ownership of the mortgaged real estate, and thereafter the decision of commencement of auction cannot be cancelled, and the successful bidder shall acquire the ownership of the mortgaged real estate on the condition of rescission that the decision of permission of successful bid becomes final and conclusive.

Articles 34(1) and 28 of the Auction Act

Kim Jong-Un et al.

United Kingdom of Foreign Affairs

Daejeon District Court Decision 63Ra62 delivered on September 29, 1964

I reverse the original decision.

The other party's appeal against the decision to dismiss an application to revoke the real estate auction decision shall be dismissed.

According to the records and reasoning of the decision of this case, Red Sick, the appellant, filed an application for voluntary auction on the real estate of this case owned by the other party as the mortgagee, and accordingly, the Daejeon District Court rendered a decision of commencement of auction on May 4, 1962 and conducted auction on November 29 of the same year. The other party filed an immediate appeal or re-appeal against this decision, but the reappeal was sent to the re-appellant on June 20, 1962 on July 30, 1963 and became final and conclusive on July 29, 1963, and on March 6 of the same year, 1963, the other party filed an application for voluntary auction on the real estate of this case owned by the other party, and decided to grant auction permission to Kim Jong-Un, the appellant, the creditor of the Daejeon District Court, on November 29, 1962.

However, the court of auction dismissed an application for the order of cancellation of the auction order of the other party on July 29, 1963 and dismissed the application for voluntary auction of the real estate of this case on the ground that the other party's deposit for repayment was valid on September 8, 1963 due to the other party's immediate appeal against this ruling. The court of auction revoked the ruling of commencement of auction of this case between the creditor Hong Sick-gun debtor on September 4, 1962 and dismissed the application for voluntary auction of this case. In the case of Article 28 of the Auction Act, the objection against the ruling of commencement of auction and the immediate appeal against the ruling of the auction court upon this request have no effect of suspending the execution. However, in the case of an objection against the ruling of commencement of auction, the court of auction can suspend the execution by issuing an order corresponding to Article 484 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and under Article 34 (1) of the same Act, the court of auction has no effect of cancelling the auction order of this case on the date of auction of this case 16th auction.

Therefore, the conclusion that the auction court in this case revoked the original decision and dismissed the other party's request for revocation order against the other party's decision on commencing auction shall be justified and the appeal shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court