The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the fact of the payment of the successful bid price was committed against the rules of evidence

In recognizing the fact of the payment of the successful bid price, it is against the rules of evidence.

We reverse the judgment of the court below

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 34 of the former Auction Act (repealed by Act No. 4201 of January 13, 1990)

Supreme Court Decision 90Meu9053 Delivered on November 9, 1990

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Daejeon District Court Decision 87Na341 delivered on February 21, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney:

The facts established by the court below are as follows. The plaintiff and 30 merchants, including the defendant, who leased 1/100 of 30 commercial buildings, enter into an auction procedure for the above building, discussed measures and decided to acquire the ownership of each object of the building at auction on April 16, 1986. The occupants of 1st floor are divided into 1 through 10 according to the location of the store taking into account various difficulties, and the 11st floor merchants and 12 underground merchants are assigned from 6 trillion won to 16 trillion won who were appointed in each of the following Article to acquire the ownership transfer registration at 18/100 of the auction proceeds, and the plaintiff shall obtain the ownership transfer registration at 18/100 of the auction proceeds at 12 trillion won and 13/100 of the auction proceeds at 13/100 of the auction proceeds at 14th of the auction proceeds, and the plaintiff shall obtain the ownership transfer registration at 6/16th of the auction proceeds at 4th of the building, respectively.

Furthermore, as to the assertion that the plaintiff acquired ownership of the above 147 and 158 by giving up the above 158 store, the court below rejected all consistent evidence, and recognized that the plaintiff arbitrarily paid the auction expenses allocated to the above 100 store although the plaintiff did not waive his right to the above 147 and 158, and that the defendant was responsible for paying the whole auction expenses allocated to 8 stores including 109, 110, and 4-2, and 8-1, which are the sole 7, which are the fact that the defendant did not pay the above 10-6 store rent for the above 10-6 store, and that the defendant did not pay the above 10-10 store rent for the above 10-6 store rent for the above 10-1 market rent for the first time without going through the 10-6 market rent for the above 4 market rent for the first time. The court below recognized that the defendant could not acquire the ownership of the above 5-111 market rent for the above 8 market rent.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)