Whether or not a person who acquired ownership after the commencement of auction has a standing to dispute whether the false will of the title of debt based on the compulsory execution.

A lawsuit of demurrer against a third party against a compulsory execution is seeking the exclusion of enforcement by asserting the right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the ownership or other subject matters with respect to the subject matter of execution already commenced, so that such right can be set up against the execution creditor, and the person who acquired ownership after the commencement of the auction cannot set up against the execution debtor. Therefore, it is not appropriate to bring a dispute against the falsity of the name of debt which forms the basis of the compulsory execution.

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na2479 delivered on December 12, 1975

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A lawsuit of demurrer against a third party against compulsory execution is claiming the right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the ownership and other subject matter of execution already commenced, and thus seeking the exclusion of enforcement against it, the right which is the cause of the lawsuit shall be capable of setting up against the execution creditor (see Supreme Court Decision 65Da70 delivered on March 16, 1969). According to the judgment of the court below duly established, the plaintiff is obviously the person who acquired the ownership after the decision of commencing the auction of this case. Thus, the plaintiff cannot set up against the execution creditor, since it is obvious that the plaintiff is

Therefore, the plaintiff is not eligible to dispute whether the name of debt, which is the basis of the compulsory execution of this case, is false or not (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da119 delivered on July 22, 1964). Therefore, the decision of the court below rejecting the plaintiff's assertion in this purport is just and it is groundless to discuss the theory of lawsuit from the opposite opinion.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Hong Ma-sung (Presiding Justice)