Applicant

Szenna Co., Ltd.

The non-party who belongs to this Court shall deliver to the applicant that he purchased on May 27, 201 in the case of this Court 2010-2439 (2010-2110, 2010-2880, 2010-3385, 2010-3881, 201-1940, 201-2225) the corporeal movables listed in the attached list to the applicant that he purchased on May 27, 201.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

The record reveals the following facts.

A. On February 26, 2010, the other party: (a) delegated an auction procedure under the lien to a court 2010No. 81 on February 26, 2010 on the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet owned by Abbbbs Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”); (b) on March 22, 2010, the other party was designated as a custodian; and (c) the said corporeal movables were seized, and (d) the auction procedure under the above lien was in progress.

B. On May 14, 2010, Episwawa Co., Ltd. entrusted a compulsory auction on each of the instant corporeal movables with the court No. 2010No2110, Jun. 14, 2010; Epis & Epis Co., Ltd. with the court No. 2010No2439, Jul. 1, 2010; Epis Korea Co., Ltd entrusted the compulsory auction on each of the instant corporeal movables under the court No. 2010No3385, Jul. 27, 2010; the enforcement officer affiliated with this court confirmed that there was no further seizure on August 24, 2010; and again seized the instant corporeal movables and applied for compulsory execution by first delivering them to the enforcement officer; and the said compulsory execution procedure was suspended by the said court.

C. On May 27, 2011, the provisional auction was held at the Geumcheon-gu Seoul District Logistics Center (number omitted), and the Nonparty notified that there was an application for the other party’s right of retention. The Nonparty notified the Nonparty of this court that the instant corporeal movables were successful, and the applicant paid KRW 93,410,000 in full.

D. However, the other party asserted the right of retention for the instant corporeal movables and refused to deliver them, and the non-party enforcement officer belonging to this court rejected the applicant’s request for delivery.

2. Determination:

In the auction procedure under a lien, etc., if the compulsory auction or the auction procedure for exercising a security right on an object has been commenced, it shall be suspended, and such procedure shall be continued for the creditor or the secured party (Article 274(2) of the Civil Execution Act). In the auction procedure for corporeal movables, the execution officer shall deliver the object sold in compliance with the price to the highest bidder (see Article 205(2) of the Civil Execution Act), and the buyer shall acquire ownership at the time of delivery of the object sold in compliance with the price.

In this case, the object of the auction procedure is not the real estate to which Article 187 of the Civil Act applies, but the transfer of the real right to corporeal movables takes effect (see Article 188(1) of the Civil Act). If the execution officer's seizure is prior to it, the lien holder is merely a custodian and it is difficult to present the delivery of the lien holder's right to claim the return of the object at the commencement of the auction procedure later, the purchaser is unable to acquire the ownership due to the failure to deliver the corporeal movables in full and at the commencement of the auction procedure, so it does not go against the procedure for compulsory auction under Article 274(2) of the Civil Execution Act, and the purchaser is not obliged to pay for the claim secured by the lien holder at the same time as the above corporeal movables in the auction procedure under Article 91(5) of the Civil Execution Act, which is the same as the above corporeal movables. Thus, if the auction creditor fails to obtain the distribution of the object of the auction procedure under Article 91(2) of the Civil Execution Act, it cannot be viewed that the above provision is contrary to the auction procedure.

Therefore, the non-party who belongs to this court should deliver the corporeal movables of this case to the applicant who paid the sales price as the highest bidder in full.

Thus, the objection of this case by the applicant is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

[Attachment]

Judges Han Sung-jin