Whether a lessee may oppose the successful bidder in the event that a lease with an opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act is established with respect to a house for which the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage has been completed, and a third party files an application for a compulsory auction and auction.

Even if a compulsory auction commenced after lease with opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, if the right to collateral security prior to the above auction ceases to exist, it is reasonable to view that the above lease has expired due to the above auction in light of the legal principles under Article 608 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 608 of the Civil Procedure Act

December 30, 1980 (Gong650, No. 13519)

Park Sang-soo

Haak-young

The defendant shall specify the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

The plaintiff's possession of the above real estate on February 4, 1986 on the ground that the plaintiff was successful on the ground that it had been successful on the ground of the bid, No. 27002 of March 27, 1986, which was accepted on March 27, 1986, and the fact that the plaintiff occupied the above real estate is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, unless the defendant asserts that he has the right to possess the above real estate and there is no proof, the above real estate should be ordered to be ordered to the plaintiff.

The defendant, on August 12, 1984, prior to the decision to commence compulsory sale of this case, entered into a lease agreement with the non-party 13,00,00 won as to the above real estate for a fixed period of one year, and paid 13,00,000 won to the above non-party 200,000 won as to the above real estate, and completed the move-in report to the competent Dong office on September 14 of the same year, as the lessee with opposing power as prescribed by the Housing Lease Protection Act, who was 13,00,000 won until the plaintiff returned 13,00,000 won to the above 30,000,000 won, the above right of lease was extinguished due to the successful bid at the above auction at the 300,000,000 won, which was 10,000 won, 30,0000 won, and 19,000,000 won,000 won,0000 won.

According to the above facts, even if a compulsory auction commenced after the lease date of the defendant, it is reasonable to view that the right of lease of the defendant was extinguished due to the above auction in light of the legal principles of Article 608 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, since the right of lease of the defendant was extinguished by the above

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted with due reasons, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant who has lost, and provisional execution shall be permitted as per Disposition.

Judges Jin-Jin-Law