logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1959. 10. 6. 선고 4292민재항119 판결
[집행방법에관한이의][집7민,234]
Main Issues

In case where a debtor in the course of compulsory auction for immovables has deposited his obligation and an objection against the auction procedure progress thereafter; and

Summary of Judgment

A. It is unreasonable for an obligor in the course of compulsory auction to file a lawsuit of demurrer to exclude the executory power of a title of debt on the ground that there is a deposit of debt indicated in the title of debt, which is the basic title of the execution, and seek revocation of the decision of approval of auction due to the establishment of objection against the execution method, etc.

B. Although a claim under a judgment which became final and conclusive as a title of debt is extinguished by performance of obligation, its executory power shall not be naturally lost unless an objection is brought by a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim, and the executory power of the title of debt is excluded. Thus, it does not constitute a ground for objection under Article 672 subparagraph

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 672 and 545 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-Appellants, Shin Jae-in

Dolle and lodging

Reasons

Even if a claim under a judgment which became final and conclusive as a title of debt is extinguished by repayment, it shall be interpreted that the execution force of the judgment shall not be naturally lost unless the executory power of the title of debt is extinguished by filing a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim, and it does not fall under the grounds for objection under Article 672 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act. In this case, in order to seek the cancellation of the decision of approval of auction on the ground that the deposit of payment of the claim indicated in the basic name of the execution of the lawsuit is due to the fact that the compulsory auction procedure is in progress based on the original copy of the settlement protocol which has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, which is obvious by the record, and as shown above, it cannot be said that the revocation of the decision of approval of auction is not appropriate because it is not a measure of suspension of execution by filing a

Justices Jeon Soo-tae (Presiding Justice) Man-sik (Presiding Justice)

arrow