A. Whether an auction purpose building is a ground for objection to the decision of approval of a successful bid in a case where the owner of the month refuses to execute a surrender on the ground that the building is another building although it is not a building on the registry (negative)

(b) Purport that an investigation is conducted on whether real estate for the purpose of auction is leased, and that the existence thereof shall be indicated in public notice of auction date;

(c) The case holding that in the public notice of the date of auction, where his children who are not entered as the lessee of real estate for the purpose of auction actually reside in it does not constitute the reason for not allowing the successful bid; and

A. Since a building for the purpose of auction is not a building on the registry and another building, a successful bidder cannot be deemed an obstacle to acquiring ownership of the object of auction and claiming an explanation against the possessor, and in a case where the consignee refuses to enforce an explanation on this ground, the successful bidder may not raise an objection against it. Therefore, the successful bidder cannot take the ground of objection against the decision of approval of the successful bidder on this ground.

B. The purport of investigating the lease of real estate for the purpose of auction in the practice of auction, and allowing the auction to indicate the existence thereof in the contents of the public notice of the auction date is to inform the auctioner of such reasons and to prevent unexpected damages by reference to them in determining the bid price.

(c) The case holding that the auction court's announcement of the fact of lease in the public notice of the auction date shall indicate the existence of the lease relationship, the fact that the lessee's child resides in the auction court cannot cause unexpected damages to the successful bidder, and the order of delivery issued by the auction court alone does not constitute a reason for not allowing the successful bid even if it is impossible to execute the surrender against the child.

(a) Article 633(b) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 618 Subparag. 3(c) of the same Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1890 decided May 28, 1985 (Gong1985,904)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Central District Court Order 91Ra306 Dated October 23, 1991

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The grounds for reappeal are examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in the grounds for reappeal, since they were not timely filed.

On the first ground for appeal

As asserted by the Re-Appellant, the registered area of the building for auction purpose of this case is 22.81 square meters in total, and its actual area is 266.1 square meters and 43.29 square meters in total, but it cannot be said that it is not recognized as identical, and even if the record is examined, there is no evidence to recognize the building for auction purpose of this case as a building on the registry and another building on the registry.

In addition, since the building for the auction purpose of this case is not a building on the registry and another building, the successful bidder cannot be deemed to obstruct the successful bidder from acquiring ownership of the object of auction and claiming an explanation against the possessor, and in the case where the debtor refuses to enforce an explanation on the ground of this, the successful bidder, who is the successful bidder, may not be considered as a ground for objection against the decision of permission of auction on the ground of this reason. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the ground for appeal by the re-appellant, which asserted that the auction building of this case violated the land No. 21.6 square meters in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul ( Address omitted), adjacent to the auction building, on the ground that the decision of permission of auction of this case was unlawful, is justified. Although the cadastral map is attached to the reason for appeal, it cannot be recognized as a crime of intrusion, and there is no error in the incomplete deliberation, and the result of the theory of the lawsuit is only attached to the ground for appeal and submitted for appeal, and it is not erroneous for the court below's fact-finding. There is no ground for appeal.

On the third ground for appeal

According to the records, it is known that the KOB was investigating and reporting that the non-applicant 1 was leasing the first floor and the underground room among the buildings for auction purpose of this case, and that the auction court also stated and publicly announced such facts. The purport of investigating the lease of real estate for auction purpose in the auction practice is to ensure that the auction contractor (the bidder) does not inform of such reason and indicate such fact in the public notice of the auction date so that it does not cause unexpected damages (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1890 delivered on May 28, 1985). In the public notice of auction date, if the auction court of this case publicly announced the above facts in the public notice of auction date, it is to indicate the existence of the lease relationship, and the fact is that the auction court of this case stated the above facts as above, and even if the non-applicant 1 resides in the above applicant 1's children, it cannot be predicted that the non-applicant, who is the successful bidder, caused any unexpected damages, and it cannot be said that there is no reason for the court of delivery order for the auction execution.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)