Requirements for becoming an interested party in the auction procedure by a person who acquired rights after registration of a request for auction

After the registration of a request for auction, the fact is registered as the holder of the right to the real estate concerned (third party purchaser), and it is an interested party in the auction (execution) to the auction (execution) by himself, and only the fact is registered as the holder of the right in another auction (execution) record attached to the record, and it cannot be deemed that the holder of the right has proved the fact to the court of execution.

Articles 607 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 72Ra433 delivered on January 9, 1973

The reappeal is dismissed.

The Re-Appellant's grounds of reappeal are examined.

A person who acquired and registered a right, such as ownership, of the real estate for the purpose of auction after the registration of the application for auction, and is an interested party in the auction procedure to prove that the fact is an interested party in the auction procedure. Under the records, even if the re-appellant registered as a third party purchaser (the third party purchaser) of this real estate as alleged in the previous precedents, the re-appellant himself does not prove it as an interested party in the execution record. However, the documents submitted by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Agricultural Cooperatives (the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Agricultural Cooperatives) which was attached to this case are recorded as a third party purchaser of this real estate. However, this attachment record cannot be concluded to be the fact that the re-appellant is a person who has proved the court of execution, since it cannot be viewed as a person who has proved the above acquisition of the real estate, and even after examining other records, the re-appellant does not constitute an interested party under each subparagraph of Article 607 of the Civil Procedure Act in the auction procedure. Therefore, the court below's decision that the plaintiff is not entitled to appeal against the decision of permission for auction of this real estate cannot be discussed.

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

Justices Kim Ha-ju (Presiding Justice)