1. Whether the delivery officer has the duty to investigate whether the name of debt is proper or the substantive relations in receiving a delegation for execution;

2. If the collection officer requested by the owner of a building to suspend the execution while the removal or execution of the main part of the building is de facto terminated, the nature of tort is committed.

1. In receiving a delegation of execution, the documents delivered from the execution creditor is only the executory exemplification of the title of debt, and the execution officer is not only bound to confirm the executory party and the subject matter of execution based on the title of debt. There is no authority or obligation to investigate the substantive relations, such as the propriety of the title of debt or the actual owner of the subject matter of execution and the change in ownership, etc.

2. In a case where an execution officer started the removal and execution of a building and requested the suspension of compulsory execution from the person claiming the owner of the building at around 3 hours after completing the removal of the roof, knifes, columns, etc., which are the main part of the building, and tried to break down the wall, but in a case where the execution of removal of the main part of the building was in fact completed and the remaining part of the wall is judged not to have any value of use, and the removal of the nife for the purpose of transferring the site was continued, the removal and execution of the building was actually completed at the time when the request for removal and suspension was made, and the continuous compulsory execution after it is merely the removal and execution of the nife to remove the nife for the purpose of transferring the site, and thus, the execution of

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 493 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Civil History District Court (83 Gohap6114)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 21,420,000 and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the day after the day when the notice was served to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances, and a provisional execution declaration.

On May 18, 1983, Nonparty 1, a co-appellant belonging to the North Branch of the Seoul District Court, forced removal on the part of Nonparty 2, the plaintiff 2 and the defendant 3's executory exemplification on the case of removing the building (case number omitted) under the delegation of enforcement by Nonparty 2 on May 18, 1983, and the fact that Nonparty 1 forced removal on the ground of the Dobong-gu Seoul relaydong (number omitted) and the house for apapap 26 square (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case") on the ground of the executory exemplification of the judgment by the defendant

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from Nonparty 4 on September 21, 1978 and completed the ownership transfer registration as of June 2, 1982, Nonparty 2, who is merely a mortgagee of the said transit Dong (number omitted), which is the site of the instant building, (hereinafter referred to as the “instant site”) around 115 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”), was awarded favorable judgment on February 26, 1981 against Nonparty 3, and after the judgment became final and conclusive, neglected the Plaintiff’s duty to remove or remove the instant building under the Plaintiff’s name, and was so delegated to Nonparty 1, the above owner of the instant building, who was a public official, to whom he had been assigned an executory power as of November 26, 1982, and was in violation of the Plaintiff’s duty to remove or remove the instant building, and the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the instant building was subject to compulsory execution by Nonparty 1, who was the owner of the instant building, was obligated to do so.

Therefore, first of all, the above non-party 1 (the above non-party 2) is obligated to examine whether the above non-party 1 is the debtor's ownership indicated on the name of debt when executing compulsory execution with the delegation by the above non-party 2. The above non-party 1, as alleged by the plaintiff, is the executory exemplification of the title of debt, and the house office's officer is merely obligated to confirm the execution party and the execution subject matter under the above title of debt (it is necessary to attach documents under Article 602 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act only in the application for compulsory auction). The above non-party 2, the above non-party 1, who is the owner of the title of debt, and the actual owner of the above subject matter of execution, are not subject to the duty to investigate the ownership of the above non-party 1 (the above non-party 2, the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who is the owner of the above non-party 2, have no authority or duty to investigate the ownership of the above non-party 1 (the above non-party 1).

In other words, the court below's decision 9-2 and 3 (a certified copy of the examination of witness) that the non-party 1 had been able to remove the above part of the building at the time when the non-party 2 had been asked to remove the building at the time of the execution of the non-party 1 and the non-party 5's testimony for the non-party 7 and the non-party 5's removal of the above part of the building at the time of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's removal of the remaining part of the building at the time of the non-party 3's request for removal of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's removal of the above building at the time of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's removal of the above part of the building at the time of the non-party 4's enforcement of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's removal of the above building at the time of the above conclusion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking compensation for damages against the defendant on the premise that the non-party 1 violated his duty as the owner of the goods and illegally removed and executed the building of this case which is owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the court below's judgment is just because it is without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition at the plaintiff's expense which is the losing party.

Judges Kim Hun-Un (Presiding Judge)