(a) The validity of the auction procedure and payment of proceeds that progress without serving the debtor with the decision on commencing auction based on the double auction application;

B. In the case of “A”, whether the third party purchaser of the object of auction received the balance after the payment of the successful bid price, and then asserts that the decision on commencement of auction becomes null and void constitutes the good faith principle or abuse of rights

(c) Validity of a decision to issue an order to return the price of the auction already paid to creditors or owners;

A. If the auction court conducted the auction procedure without serving the decision on the debtor while making a ruling on the commencement of auction based on a double auction application, such auction shall be deemed null and void naturally as it was conducted without serving the debtor with the decision on commencement of auction. Thus, the order for the payment of the auction price before the decision on commencement of auction was served on the debtor and the payment of the auction price accordingly is not valid as the payment of the price under the condition that the auction procedure cannot continue

B. Even if an invalid auction procedure, as stated in Paragraph A, is in progress, and the owner of the third party purchaser of the object of auction received the amount remaining after being distributed to the creditors in sequence among the auction price, and the debtor did not raise any objection with respect to the above auction procedure, such circumstance alone does not lead to a violation of the principle of good faith or an abuse of rights that the third party purchaser, who might lose ownership to the object of auction due to such auction, claims that the decision on commencement of auction was invalid because the decision on commencement of auction was not served on the debtor, and thus,

C. In a case where the auction court accepted an objection against the method of execution by the owner who was a third party purchaser and declared that the order for the payment of the price is null and void, there is no legal basis to deem that the creditors or owners who already received the successful bid price should return the amount received to the auction court, and thus, the decision of revocation of the court below’s order for the payment of the price cannot be deemed unlawful.

(b) Article 654(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 603(4) and Article 604(b) of the Civil Procedure Act;

Supreme Court Decision 91Ma239 delivered on December 16, 1991 (Gong1992, 633) 93Da9477 delivered on January 28, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 815)

Re-appellant

Supreme Court Order 93Ma634 Dated January 27, 1994

Suwon District Court Order 94Ra107 Dated December 14, 1994

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

If an auction court conducted an auction procedure without delivering a decision on the commencement of auction upon an application for double auction to an obligor, such auction shall be deemed null and void as a matter of course, since the auction procedure was conducted under the condition that the decision on commencement of auction takes effect. Thus, as recognized by the court below, the order for the payment of auction price prior to the service of the obligor, and the payment of auction price pursuant to this order shall not be recognized as effective as the payment of the price under the condition that the auction procedure cannot proceed. Thus, the auction procedure

Therefore, in this case, the re-appellant's payment of the price after the decision of approval of the auction becomes final and conclusive and the registration of ownership transfer is completed, so even if there is any defect in the auction procedure, it is not reasonable to argue that the defect is already cured or any further objection is not raised.

2. On the second ground for appeal

As above, the invalid auction procedure is in progress and the third purchaser of the object of auction was paid the amount remaining after being distributed to the creditors among the successful bid price, and even if the debtor did not raise any objection with respect to the above auction procedure, the owner of the third purchaser, who is likely to lose ownership to the object of auction due to such auction merely because of the above circumstances, asserts that the decision on commencement of auction is invalid because the decision on commencement of auction is not served on the debtor, is contrary to the principle of good faith, or it cannot be deemed as an abuse of rights. Therefore, there is no reason

3. On the third ground for appeal

In a case where the auction court accepted an objection against the method of execution by the owner who was the third purchaser and declared that the order for the payment of the price is null and void, there is no legal basis to deem that the creditors or owners who already received the successful bid price should return the amount received in the invalid distribution procedure to the auction court, and therefore, there is no ground to view that the decision of revocation of the order for the payment of the price of this case is unlawful.

4. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)