Whether a creditor who demanded a distribution by submitting a copy other than the original copy of an authentic deed granted by an execution clause in an auction procedure constitutes an interested party under Article 607 of the former Civil Procedure Act (affirmative)

Article 607 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) stipulates a creditor who has requested a distribution with an executory exemplification as one of the interested parties in the auction procedure. The above creditor's demand for distribution to the court of execution does not necessarily have to submit to the court of execution the executory exemplification itself, but is sufficient by submitting an executory exemplification or a demand for distribution accompanied by a copy. Thus, in the bidding procedure, it cannot be said that the re-appellant is not an interested party solely on the ground that the re-appellant submitted a copy of the notarial deed granted by execution clause.

Article 607 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of January 26, 2002) and Article 607 (See Article 90 of the current Civil Execution Act)

Supreme Court Order 2001Ma7027 Decided June 21, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2467) 202Ma2812 Decided September 5, 2002

Re-appellant

Seoul District Court Order 2001Ra4193 dated January 5, 2002

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Re-Appellant's appeal on the ground that the Re-Appellant cannot be deemed an interested party of the bid procedure of this case as a demand creditor for distribution, since the Re-Appellant only submitted a copy of the Notarial Deed granted by the execution clause while demanding a distribution to the court of execution prior to the pronouncement of the decision to permit the successful bid, in order to become an interested party of the bid procedure.

Article 607 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) stipulates creditors who have requested distribution based on an executory exemplification as one of the interested parties in the auction procedure. The above creditors' demand for distribution to the court of execution does not necessarily have to submit the executory exemplification itself to the court of execution, but is sufficient by submitting an executory exemplification or a demand for distribution accompanied by a copy. Thus, in the bid procedure of this case, the re-appellant cannot be deemed an interested party merely on the ground that the re-appellant submitted a copy, not the original copy of the notarial deed granted by the execution clause.

The order of the court below that judged otherwise cannot be exempted from reversal due to an unlawful act.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)