Whether the successful bidder can dispute the acquisition of ownership by citing the absence of secured claim after the completion of the voluntary auction case.

On the successful bidder who has acquired the ownership of the successful bidder due to the exercise of the right to collateral security legally established, the acquisition of the ownership of the successful bidder cannot be invalidated for the reason of the non-existence of the right to collateral security or the non-existence of the period of repayment of the secured obligation

Article 187 of the Civil Code, Article 3 of the Auction Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (74Gahap1709) in the first instance trial

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below to revoke the original judgment and to revoke the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the decision to grant a successful bid on May 11, 1973, No. 15731, April 22, 1972, where the defendant received from the plaintiff an amount equivalent to 36% per annum 5% from January 14, 1971 to August 2, 1972 and an amount equivalent to 25% per annum 5% per annum from August 3, 1972 from August 2, 1972.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (each copy of register) Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5-1 (record), No. 5-2 (Request for Auction) Eul evidence Nos. 5-2 (B/L) and evidence No. 5-5 (Request for Set-off)-1 of Gap evidence Nos. 5-2 (B/L) were owned by the plaintiff, the real estate recorded in the attachment (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case") was originally owned by the plaintiff. On January 16, 1971, the registration of the establishment of the real estate of KRW 1,300,000 was completed on the maximum debt amount for the guarantee of the defendant's obligation against the non-party 1's defendant on June 4, 196. Upon the defendant's application for the auction of real estate on April 22, 1972, the registration of the establishment of the ownership was completed on May 1, 1973.

The plaintiff, without the above secured claim, conspired with the non-party 1 to pay the principal and interest of 1,00,000 won to the non-party 2 after January 12, 1971, and borrowed 500,000 won from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1,000 won which was issued by the non-party 1, as of May 13, 1971, he forged a promissory note with the non-party 1, and applied for a voluntary auction on June 4, 1971, and the bid price was confirmed accordingly. Thus, the transfer registration due to the decision of permission on the above real estate was not valid since the plaintiff's above secured claim was 0,00 won for the non-party 1 to the non-party 2's secured claim, and there is no obligation to cancel the agreement with the plaintiff 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1, who had acquired the above secured claim, within the limit of 5000,0,0000 won per share of the plaintiff 1's testimony.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is clearly groundless without any further determination, so it shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the same court is just, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed without merit, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Don (Presiding Judge)