Where the registration of the commencement of a request for auction based on the right to collateral security on the land for which replotting has become final and conclusive has been entered in the original register of the previous land, the effect of the decision

Although a replotting disposition was finalized, but if a registry official filed an application for auction at the request of the court with respect to the land before the registration of replotting was made, it violates Article 65 (3) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, but even if the land substitution determination is made, the mortgage established on the previous land continues to exist without extinguishing the mortgage, and in such a case, the effect of the decision to commence auction cannot be seen as the execution of a mortgage existing on the land substitution. Therefore, even if the registration of entry to the application for auction was illegal, it cannot affect the effect of the decision to permit the auction

Article 65 (3) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, Article 3 of the Auction Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 88Ra519 Dated July 20, 1988

The reappeal is dismissed.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, on April 3, 1982, there was a public announcement of replotting disposition on the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 in accordance with the records. On July 3, 1982, the said land has been completed and confirmed replotting with the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2; at the time of the public announcement of replotting disposition, the land listed in the above annexed sheet No. 1 in the register No. 776; and the non-party No. 1 was registered as joint ownership at the rate of 120/76 shares; the right to collateral security was established on the above shares of the appellant; on August 27, 1982, the public official of the Gangseo registry office, after the replotting disposition became final, after being commissioned by the Southern Branch of the Seoul District Court to enter the new list No. 61837 on August 13, 1982, and upon being commissioned by the previous registry office to enter the new list No. 360 on each of the above land to receive the above new substitute lot No. 16637.

On August 16, 1985, in this case, the registration official changed the indication column of the registry of the previous land to the land in accordance with the request of the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 16, 1985 and stated the purport that a part of the registry is transferred to another registry by the division of land substitution, and then the previous indication and number is legitimate and there is no reason to argue that the measure is in violation of the relevant laws and regulations, and that the registration official's entry registration by the entrustment of the Seoul District Court's branch on August 27, 1982 by the request of the Seoul District Court's branch of the Seoul District Court on August 27, 1982 is still registered after the disposition of replotting became final and conclusive, and even if the decision of commencement of auction becomes final and conclusive, it cannot be seen that the decision of permission of auction is effective even if the registration of successful bid is illegal. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer by the auction court on August 30, 1985 cannot be deemed invalid.

Therefore, the lower court's dismissal of the appeal by the re-appellant is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the laws such as theory of lawsuit or by omitting judgment. All of the arguments are without merit. The reappeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)