Whether the validity of a contract for the grant of compensation concluded with a third party upon application for delegation of execution can be attributed to the applicant

The recipient is an institution exercising the power of execution of the State, and the delegation of execution by the applicant is a kind of application under the Civil Procedure Act, and the relationship between the applicant and the recipient is a legal relationship under the Public Law, and it cannot be regarded as a legal representative or a deceased person of the applicant. Therefore, if the recipient concludes a contract for the grant of compensation with a third party upon the application for the delegation of execution, the validity of the deposit contract concluded by the recipient can not be attributed to the applicant.

Article 534 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court (86 Ghana2532)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,720,00 and the amount at the rate of 25% per annum from the day from the day of service of the copy to the day of complete payment of the above amount.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant, and a declaration of provisional execution.

The cancellation of the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment (payment of the amount of KRW 1,344,842 and the amount with the rate of 25 percent per annum from February 26, 1986 to the full payment system) and the decision to accept the plaintiff's claim on that part.

(3) On the other hand, the defendant received 10/10 of the total amount of storage fees of Nonparty 1, 2, 3-2, 4, 10, 12, 17, 2, 3, 4-2, 5-6, and 9-10 of the above auction proceeds and received 10/10 of the total amount of storage fees of Nonparty 1, 3, 4, 6 ( Receipt of Custody), and 10-1, 90 of the above auction proceeds and received 10-1,000,000 won for each of the above auction proceeds and 10-1,000,000 won for each of the above auction proceeds and 10-6,000 won for each of the above auction proceeds and 10-6,000 won for each of the above auction proceeds and 10-6,000 won for each of the above auction proceeds and 10-1,000 won for each of the above auction proceeds.

The plaintiff sought payment of the sum of KRW 1,720,00 for 26 months from November 29, 1983 to February 12, 1986 for the bus (vehicle number omitted) to the defendant, and the plaintiff first claims that the request for custody of the bus was the defendant, but the evidence that the defendant requested custody of the bus directly to the plaintiff is not believed Gap No. 5-1, and even if the defendant was accompanied by the defendant at the time of the request for custody of the bus, the defendant cannot be considered as the bailor because he was merely an assistant or a manager of the office, and as recognized above, the plaintiff's claim that the above custody contract was concluded directly with the defendant since the house manager was the defendant, there is no ground for the plaintiff's claim that the request for custody of the bus was made by the defendant.

The plaintiff also argued that the defendant is liable to pay the storage fees of this case since the defendant made a request to the plaintiff for the auction, the entrustment of the execution of the order of delivery, and the custody application for the defendant, and the defendant made a request for the above delegation on the condition that he pays some of the expenses for the custody of the defendant in advance and bears additional expenses.

On the other hand, in order to execute the delivery order issued at the time of the decision on commencing the auction under the current car auction procedure, the applicant for the auction has the above original copy and has delegated the execution to the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office in charge of the case has been determined internally and the delivery execution and the custody

However, since the delegation of the execution by the defendant is a kind of application under the Civil Procedure Act and the delegation of the execution by the defendant is a legal relationship between the defendant and the government agency, i.e., the relationship between the defendant and the government agency under the Civil Procedure Act, i.e., the relationship between the defendant and the government agency, and the office of the month can not be regarded as the legal representative or the company under the private law of the execution applicant, and since the execution was commenced by the delegation of the applicant and the office of the month as part of the execution disposition, it cannot be attributed to the applicant. Furthermore, in the case where the office of the month received the object in accordance with the delivery order issued by the decision of the commencement of the auction in the case of the automobile auction in this case, the custody can be made directly by the office of the debtor, the debtor, or the third party, unless the execution court makes a decision, and if the expenses are required for the custody, the office of the payment order shall be ordered to the creditor for a certain period of time and the defendant shall not be obliged to pay the expenses for the defendant.

In this regard, the plaintiff has the right to claim for the storage fees under the above contract for consideration. As such, the defendant did not immediately notify the plaintiff of the measure taken by the court in the execution procedure that he did not know as the party to the above execution case, that is, he did not immediately notify the plaintiff of the situation of cancellation of execution, etc., and even if it was based on the defendant's intentional negligence, the plaintiff does not be deemed to have suffered loss, and therefore, the plaintiff'

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case without any assertion as to the grounds for which the defendant is liable to pay the above parking fees to the plaintiff shall be dismissed without merit. Since the original judgment is more unfavorable to the plaintiff than the conclusion of the original judgment, the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed in this case where only the plaintiff appealed in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Cho Jong-Un (Presiding Judge)