Whether the payment of the successful bid price is legitimate in case where the debtor has made a deposit by lawful repayment of the obligation after the debtor has fully paid the successful bid price and completed the distribution procedure.

In a case where a debtor has filed an appeal by completing the above decision of permission of successful bid after payment of the auction price by treating it as final and conclusive decision of permission of successful bid, and the debtor has been permitted to file an appeal by completing the above decision of permission of successful bid, the payment of the above successful bid price cannot be deemed a lawful order of payment. Therefore, it is legitimate that the debtor files an objection against the decision of commencement of auction after paying the principal

Article 28 of the Auction Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Civil History District Court Decision 68Ra419 delivered on August 19, 1968

The reappeal is dismissed.

As to the reasons for the reappeal:

The facts found by the court below are as follows. The decision of approval of a successful bid shall not be made within the statutory period and the auction court shall treat the above decision as final and conclusive and notified the successful bidder of the date of payment of the successful bid price. Thus, the appellant shall pay the price and complete the distribution procedure, but at the same time the appellant shall pay the price to the debtor on March 13, 1967, and the non-appellant who is the owner of the subject matter at the same time filed an appeal after completion of the decision of permission of the successful bid, and the court shall have decided the period of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the non-appellant's liability (the non-appellant is residing in the present address from 1962 to the present date, and the creditor shall not send the above peremptory notice to the non-appellant's address and shall not receive some of the above peremptory notice to the non-appellant's address and shall not have any error in the rules of law as to the non-appellant's order of the auction procedure after the non-appellant's rejection of the above non-permanent auction claim.

Therefore, as long as the court below deposits the principal and interest of the obligation, auction expenses, etc. to the auction court before the order to pay the auction price is issued, even though the decision of permission of auction has become final and conclusive based on the above facts, it cannot be said that the appeal against the decision of commencement of auction was justifiable, and even if the plaintiff paid the auction price by the auction court that deemed the decision of permission of auction was final and conclusive before the application to pay the auction price was granted, even if the plaintiff paid the auction price by the order to pay the auction price from the auction court that regarded as final and conclusive before the above order to pay the auction price was granted, it cannot be said that the payment of the auction price was made by lawful order after the above order to pay the auction price was granted. In other words, there is no argument to attack the original decision as the opposing opinion.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)