With respect to the registration of cancellation of Article 35 (1) 2 and 3 of the Auction Act, which was made by the successful bidder of real estate who was the third purchaser of the deprivation, while the registration under subparagraph 1 of the same Article was not made, the above successful bidder who thereafter acquired the right from that time, shall be entrusted with the cancellation registration based on the decision of approval of the successful bidder.

With respect to the registration of cancellation of Article 35 (1) 2 and 3 of the Auction Act, which was held by the successful bidder of real estate who was the third purchaser of the deprivation, but was not registered under Article 35 (1) 1 of the Auction Act, with respect to the registration of which he acquired the right thereafter, the entrustment of cancellation registration based on the decision of approval of the successful bidder is unjust.

Article 35 of the Auction Act

Applicant

Respondent 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na19 decided April 22, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal by the respondent are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below shall register application for auction of the lawsuit of this case

Since the non-party 1 who was registered as the third purchaser at the same time completed auction by fully paying the price of the auction, the non-party 2 cannot request the registration of cancellation under the above provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the Auction Act, and he is registered as the third purchaser under the above provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the same Act, and the non-party 1 cannot request the cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the above provision of Paragraph 1 of the same Article because the non-party 2 did not request the cancellation of ownership transfer registration under his own name as the third purchaser and the non-party 1 cannot request the cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the above provision of Paragraph 1 of the same Article because the non-party 2 cannot request the above cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the premise that the non-party 1 cannot request the cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the above provision of Paragraph 1 of the court below to the non-party 1 because it is clear that the non-party 2 had the right to request cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the above provision of the court below's reasoning.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Han Young-gu (Presiding Judge)