Cases where there are any defects in the compulsory execution on delivery of immovables, and the effect of such execution

Even if there is any defect in the delivery of real estate without the attendance of the creditor or the representative, the debtor can perform the work as the debtor, so the defect cannot be again executed by the same execution clause.

Article 469 of the Civil Procedure Act

East Asian Power Corporation

Part-time University (Attorney Oi-lim, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 4293No71 delivered on August 18, 1960

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are as follows.

1. On the first ground of examination, since the delivery of substitute real estate requires compulsory execution by compulsory possession from the debtor and the delivery of it to the creditor, it is the theory of lawsuit that the execution will be conducted when the creditor or his representative was present in order to deliver it. However, even though the creditor or his representative did not attend, if he received possession completely from the debtor and delivered it to him or to a third party, the execution cannot be carried out defective, but the debtor cannot be carried out again, and therefore, it cannot be carried out again by the same execution clause. Under the facts established by the court below, the non-party country, the creditor, the creditor, cannot be carried out again by the execution clause, and it cannot be carried out again by the plaintiff's new order to the effect that it cannot be carried out again by the plaintiff's order to the effect that it cannot be carried out again by the plaintiff's new execution order to the effect that it cannot be carried out by the plaintiff's agent, the plaintiff's possession of the real estate before the expiration of 20 months as the compulsory execution order.

2. The second and third points of examination are as follows: (a) even if the defendant's execution of provisional disposition falls under the successor of the State, such as the above-mentioned theory, it is merely one of the above-mentioned cases, and under the premise that the execution has already been completed by the State, and thus, (b) it cannot be deemed as unlawful for the plaintiff's possession by the new title, and its purpose is to maintain the current actual or legal status, and thus, it cannot be denied the result of the execution by the third party who does not participate in the debtor's act or by another creditor's execution in the lawsuit on the merits, the execution of the provisional disposition cannot be asserted against the plaintiff, which is not a new one of the above-mentioned provisional disposition (the defendant's own assertion against the plaintiff and the heir of the State), and thus, it cannot be viewed as an execution order again based on the premise that the defendant's new execution of provisional disposition was not executed by the defendant's own assertion, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an execution order's succession to the debtor's possession.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)