(a) In a case where the decision to grant the successful bid becomes final at the time of enforcement of the former Auction Act, the successful bidder shall acquire the ownership of the successful bid on the condition that the successful bid price is not paid within the payment date at the same time.

B. In quasi-adjudications on the ground that there was a omission of judgment in the original judgment, the Re-Appellant knew that there was a omission of judgment at the time when the decision of the original court was served, barring special circumstances.

A. In quasi-examination on the ground that there was a omission of judgment in the original judgment, the Re-Appellant knew of the omission of judgment when he was served with the original judgment, barring special circumstances.

B. At the time of enforcement of the former Auction Act, the successful bidder shall acquire the ownership of the auction property on the condition that the successful bidder does not pay the auction price within the payment date at the same time as the decision of permission of the successful bidder becomes final and conclusive.

Article 2 of the former Auction Act, Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Seoul High Court Order 198Hun-Ga29 dated August 14, 1967

The reappeal is dismissed.

No. 1 of the grounds for re-appeal

In a case where the decision of approval of auction becomes final and conclusive at the time of enforcement of the former Auction Act, the successful bidder acquired the ownership of the property at auction on the condition that the successful bidder would not pay the successful bid price at the same time as the decision of approval of auction, and even if the successful bidder repaid the obligation before the payment of the successful bid price after the decision of approval of auction becomes final and conclusive, the extinction of the mortgage due to the repayment cannot be set up against the successful bidder, and therefore, it cannot be set up against the successful bidder. Therefore, it cannot be set up against the opposing opinion to criticize the original decision.

No. 2 of the grounds for re-appeal

1. The decision of the court below is just in holding that the decision of the court below on the present case, which is the basis of the above payment, cannot be null and void as a result of the debtor's deposit of the successful bid price prior to the payment of the auction price. The reasons for reversal of the decision of the court below 1961Ma565, which is the basis of the above payment, are erroneous in the conclusion that the new establishment of the decision of the court below as to the commencement of auction of real estate shall not be dismissed after the decision of the successful bid becomes final and conclusive. The part cited in the argument is hard to be viewed as the reasons for reversal of the above decision, and it cannot be said that the decision of the court below violated Article 18 of the Organization of the Court Act. Therefore

2. In the original decision, unless there are the special group's circumstances, the applicant knew of the reasons, and therefore, within 30 days thereafter, the applicant shall apply for reexamination on the ground of the reasons for the quasi-examination."Unless there are special circumstances as to the reasons for the quasi-examination of the original decision of the original court, the re-appellant knew of the fact that there was a omission of judgment at the time of receiving the service of the original decision of the original court. Thus, the re-appellant must apply for quasi-examination on the ground of the reasons for the non-examination within 30 days after the original decision became final and conclusive, and since the application for quasi-examination was filed only after the lapse of the period, it is clear that the application for quasi-examination on the ground of the omission was unlawful and it was not a judgment on the grounds for the alteration of evidence documents, and therefore, it is not reasonable because it erred by misapprehending the original decision.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Round (Presiding Judge) Kim Gi-gim and Hongnam Table