In case of compulsory auction by notarial deed, if any obligation is repaid after a decision to permit a successful bid is made, the validity of the decision to permit a successful bid.

In the compulsory execution procedure, even if the title of debt is either a final and conclusive judgment or an executory deed, and the documents prescribed in Article 510 of the Civil Procedure Act, such as the certificate of repayment of debt, etc., are submitted after the decision of permission of a successful bid, such a reason cannot be a reason for appeal which can affect the validity of the decision of permission of a successful bid already lawful.

Articles 510 and 642 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Ma82 Decided March 31, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 80Ma96 Decided January 19, 1981, Decision 81Ma183 Decided December 22, 1981, Decision 81Da221 Decided December 13, 1982

Re-Appellant 1 and four agents Lee Jae-sung

Seoul Central District Court Order 82Ra746 dated March 24, 1983

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

Re-Appellant 4 and Re-Appellant 5 are dismissed.

1. As to the reappeal 4 and the reappeal 5:

Inasmuch as the re-appeal does not contain any statement in the grounds for re-appeal, or did not submit the written grounds for re-appeal within the statutory period (the grounds for re-appeal of the re-appeals were submitted on June 4, 1983, which was after the expiration of the period) under Articles 413(2) and 399 of the Civil Procedure Act, this reappeal shall not

2. Re-appellant 2, 1, etc., 3 and 3 of the re-appellant's re-appeal ground No. 3 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the court below's order, since the compulsory auction of this case is a notarial deed with no res judicata effect, not a court's trial but a notarial deed with no res judicata effect, the court below held that if a claim is repaid prior to the completion of the compulsory execution procedure, it would not continue the auction procedure after treating it as a case of voluntary auction, unlike the case of compulsory execution by final judgment. In full view of the adopted evidence, the appellant who is the debtor, as part of the principal amount of the auction claim of this case, paid a sum of KRW 5 million on November 6, 1982 and KRW 15,00,000 per annum on February 10, 1983, as interest, delay damages, and execution expenses, which exceed those amounts to KRW 2,745,230,00,000, and thus, the auction procedure is no longer effective due to the extinguishment of all of the auction claims of this case. Accordingly, the appeal of this case is justified and the permission decision of this case is no longer reasonable.

However, even if a document stipulated in Article 510 of the Civil Procedure Act is submitted after a decision of approval of a successful bid has already been made in the procedure for compulsory auction, such reason cannot be a reason for appeal which can affect the validity of the decision of approval of a successful bid which has already been lawfully made. The court below's decision of approval of a compulsory auction is not a notarial deed or a notarial deed which has different reasoning from that of the decision of approval of a compulsory auction on the ground that the decision of approval of a compulsory auction has no different reasoning from that of the court below's decision of approval of a compulsory auction before the completion of a compulsory auction as stated in its reasoning.

3. Accordingly, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of Seoul Civil Procedure District Court, which is the court below, to make a new trial and determination. The reappeal 4 and 5 of the re-appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)