Whether a purchaser may apply for the cancellation of the decision to permit sale even after the second sale order (negative)

The purpose of Articles 127(1) and 121 subparag. 6 of the Civil Execution Act is to relieve a purchaser's disadvantage by allowing a purchaser to file an application for revocation of the decision on permission for sale. According to Article 138(1) of the Civil Execution Act, the effect of the decision on permission for sale finalized upon the issuance of an order to re-sale under Article 138(1) of the Civil Execution Act is lost, and Article 138(3) of the Civil Execution Act is attributable to the nonperformance of the former buyer's obligation to pay the price, so long as the former buyer intends to fully pay the statutory price, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the buyer cannot file an application for revocation of the decision on permission for sale after the order to re-sale was issued.

Article 121 subparag. 6, Articles 127(1), 138(1) and (3) of the Civil Execution Act

Korea Asset Management Corporation (Law Firm Law Firm, Attorney Lee Young-soo, Counsel for defendant)

Changwon District Court Order 2008Ra134 dated July 11, 2008

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

The grounds of reappeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief filed after the expiration of the deadline for re-appeal).

Article 127(1) and Article 121 subparag. 6 of the Civil Execution Act provides that “Where it is found that real estate has been significantly damaged due to a natural disaster or any other cause not attributable to himself/herself, or the change in the material relationship with respect to real estate has become final and conclusive, the purchaser may file an application for revocation of the decision to permit the sale until he/she pays the price.” The purport of Article 127(1) and Article 121 subparag. 6 of the Civil Execution Act is to relieve the purchaser’s disadvantage by allowing the purchaser to file an application for revocation of the decision to permit the sale in the above case, and Article 138(1) of the Civil Execution Act provides that “If the purchaser fails to perform his/her obligation within the due date for payment or re-sale under Article 142(4), the court shall ex officio order re-sale of real estate.” Article 138(3) of the Civil Execution Act provides that “It is reasonable for the purchaser to fully cancel the procedure of auction prior to the date of re-sale, etc.

According to the records, on April 25, 2008, the applicant for cancellation of the permit for sale of the building of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant") purchased the maximum price of KRW 8.95 million on the date of sale of the building of this case and paid KRW 763,877,400 on April 25, 2008. The auction court decided to permit the sale of the building of this case at KRW 8.95 billion on May 2, 2008. The auction court decided to permit the sale of the building of this case at KRW 8.95 billion on May 20, 2008, which was after the above decision of permit for sale became final and conclusive, and notified on May 10, 2008 as KRW 30 on May 29, 2008.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the time limit during which the purchaser may apply for the revocation of the decision of permission for sale of this case not later than three days prior to the date of re-sale, which affected the conclusion of the decision.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of reappeal, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)