Whether a person who acquired and registered a real right, such as ownership, after the registration of a request for auction, falls under the so-called "interested person" under Article 30 (3) 4 of the Auction Act.

The interested parties under paragraph (3) 2 and 3 of this Article shall include not only owners of the immovables but also the right holders of the immovables registered in the registry prior to the registration of application for auction, but also the persons who have proved such fact to the auction court.

Article 30(3) of the Auction Act, Article 26(3) of the Auction Act, Article 31 of the Auction Act, Article 187 of the Civil Act, Article 618 subparag. 9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Jeong Man-man et al.

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 64Ra77 delivered on May 12, 1964

The re-appeal by the Re-Appellant, Jeongcheon-si and Dong Kimcheon-si is dismissed.

The part of the Re-Appellant Kim Tae-tae's reappeal's reappeal that the appeal against the order of appeal against the order of appeal against the order of appeal against the order of appeal against the High Court is dismissed.

The part of this case is remanded to Seoul Civil District Court Panel Division.

The grounds for reappeal of the Re-Appellant, Jeongcheon-si are examined.

However, even if the successful bid price is low compared to the market price of the object of auction, it is not a legitimate legal procedure and it is not an objection against the decision of approval of the successful bid, and the result of legitimate legal procedure is not a violation of public order and good morals. Furthermore, even if the principal and interest of the secured claim as of the last day of April 1964 is only KRW 300,00,000, the fact is not related to the fact that the Re-Appellants have received the decision of approval of the successful bid, and even if part of the secured claim has been extinguished after the decision of approval of the successful bid, it is not a matter of violation of excessive auction retroactively. Thus, all arguments are not acceptable. Accordingly, the reappeals are dismissed by unanimous opinion of all participating judges.

Next, we judge the grounds for reappeal of the Re-Appellant Kim Tae-tae.

According to the original decision, the court below held that "interested parties under Article 30 (3) of the Auction Act" refer to those who acquired ownership or other rights to the real estate prior to the registration of a request for auction, and does not include those who acquired rights after the registration of the request for auction. According to the contents of the certified copy of the register submitted by Kim Tae-tae, the appellant, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, the date of completion of the registration of the request for auction is 19 June 8, 1963, and the date of completion of the registration after acquiring a subordinated mortgage on the real estate by the appellant, can be recognized as facts on October 19 of the same year, and therefore, the appellant cannot be deemed as interested parties in the auction procedure. However, an immediate appeal against the decision of permission for auction can only be filed by the interested parties in the auction procedure, so the main appeal filed by the appellant is unlawful as it constitutes an appeal filed by a person who

An interested party under Article 30 (3) 2 Item 3 of the Act refers to the owner or other right holder of the real estate registered in the registry prior to the entry of the registration of the request for auction, and the person who acquired the right after the registration of the request for auction does not include this, the previous precedents of the original court are the same as the original decision. However, the person who acquired and registered the right, such as ownership, after the registration of the request for auction, and proves the fact to the auction court shall be deemed to be an interested party under Article 30 (3) 4 of the Auction Act. Therefore, the court below's decision that dismissed the appeal against Kim Tae-tae's decision as stated above is erroneous in the interpretation of Article 30 of

This is because today's interpretation of the principle of form or requirement of establishment as to the change of real rights, unlike the requirement of registration in the former civil law as to the change of real rights, as to the interested parties in the auction procedure under Article 30 (3) of the Auction Act, the person who proves his rights as the right holder of the real estate under Article 30 (4) of the Auction Act, is not limited to the right holder of the real estate which is not required to be registered under the previous civil law, such as prior acquisition right, but is registered after the registration of a request for auction, and therefore the person who proves his rights such as ownership is not referred to as the person who acquires the right of the real estate after the registration of the request for auction. This is a comparison of the provisions of Article 187 of the new civil law and Article 618 (9) of the Civil Procedure Act, which are not required to be registered, and it is difficult for the person who has the right to participate in the auction to prevent the seizure of the real estate at the same time due to the delivery of the decision to commence auction or the registration of auction under Article 26 (30).

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all the participating judges except for the maximum leapman among the judges of the Supreme Court judges, the part rejecting the appeal of the original decision in accordance with Article 413(2) and Article 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall be reversed, and the part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

The dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court Justices Yang Jong-won, the Kim Jong-won, is as follows.

Article 30 (3) 4 of the Auction Act provides that "the person who proves his/her right as a person holding a right to real estate" means the case where a person holding a right not required to be registered proves the existence of a right in claiming the right to real estate in the registry, considering the fact that Article 618 (9) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is compared to Article 30 (3) 3 of the Auction Act and is to be publicly announced by Article 31 of the Auction Act, provides that "the person who proves his/her right to real estate as a person holding a right to real estate" refers to the case where he/she proves the existence of a right to real estate in claiming the right to real estate. Therefore, in this case, since the registration of a request for auction has passed through the registration of a seizure of the real estate at auction, the applicant for auction and the successful bidder filed a report of the right, which shall not be deemed an interested party under Article 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, and therefore, the original decision rejecting an appeal by Kim Tae-tae's order,

It is so decided as per the Disposition for above reasons.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Gyeong-Gyeong (Presiding Judge) Dog-Gyeong-Gyeong-do and Kim Jong-dong, Kim & Han-kak, Hong-kak, Kim Jong-won, Man-man, Mag-ri,