In the compulsory auction, if the successful bidder pays the successful bid price and pays it before the deadline for payment determined by the court, the validity of the payment of the successful bid price.

In the case of a compulsory auction, as in the case of a voluntary auction, the successful bidder is effective only to pay the successful bid price on the date of payment designated by the court of auction, and to acquire ownership in the auction property thereafter, and to require the auction court to perform the obligation under Article 648 (1) of this Act, which provides that "if the obligation is not fully performed on the date of payment for the price," it shall be deemed that the auction court designated the date of payment for the price and its date (not before it). Therefore, if the successful bidder has paid the auction price on the designated date, it shall not be deemed as the payment for the juristic person.

Article 654 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and four others

Daegu High Court Decision 65Na572 delivered on March 30, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

According to Article 654 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act which provides the procedure for compulsory auction, the payment of the price and the distribution of dividends are to be made on the date prescribed by the court after the decision to permit the auction becomes final and conclusive.

In the procedure for compulsory auction of immovables, the successful bidder shall consider whether it is appropriate to regard the successful bid price to be paid to the court lawfully even before the date of payment of the price is misunderstanding after the decision to permit the auction becomes final and conclusive.

In most cases, if it is possible to do so, the successful bidder would try to fully acquire the ownership of the mortgaged real estate by paying the successful bid price before the date of payment determined by the auction court is clerical error and the successful bidder's price is paid.On the other hand, in order to prevent the ownership of the mortgaged real estate from being transferred to the successful bidder, the owner of the mortgaged real estate or the secured debtor of the auction bond will pay the secured debt and the auction cost and prevent the progress of compulsory execution by filing a lawsuit of objection against the claim. In such a case, if a lawsuit of objection is filed against the claim in the debtor, and if a compulsory execution is suspended by receiving a provisional disposition under Article 507 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the auction court cannot proceed with the compulsory auction procedure, because the payment date of the successful auction price can not be set, and therefore, the successful bidder would be prevented from acquiring the ownership of the real estate completely by paying the successful bid price. As such, it would affect the owner of the auction real estate at any time.

From this point of view, in case of compulsory auction (see Article 34 of the Auction Act) and in case of voluntary auction, the successful bidder has paid the successful bid price on the date of payment of the successful bid price set by the auction court, and the successful bidder has paid the successful bid price, and thereafter, he can not be employed because the compulsory auction cannot be applied to this case (Supreme Court Order 65Ma141 Decided April 28, 1965) on the ground of the provision of the Civil Procedure Act prior to the amendment, because the original judgment cannot be adopted. Accordingly, even if Article 648 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act stipulating the compulsory auction provides that "if the obligation is not fully performed on the date of payment of the purchase price, it shall be considered that the payment date designated by the auction court and the purpose of demanding the successful bidder to perform the obligation on that date (not before that date) is to require the execution of the obligation.

Accordingly, the decision of the court below is just in the case where the plaintiff, the successful bidder, paid the successful bidder's price on the date that the auction court did not designate, and in the case of the case where the successful bidder paid the successful bidder's price, it cannot be viewed as the payment of the successful corporation, and it is not reasonable in the contrary.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the authority to transfer a red net holiday.