[1] The meaning of "a change in the important relation of rights to real estate" as stipulated in Article 121 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Execution Act, which provides the grounds for filing an objection to a sale permit

[2] The case holding that the reason for assessing the price by mistakenly applying the subject matter of sale, which is a neighborhood living facility, to the auction procedure of real estate, does not constitute a ground for revocation of the decision on permission for sale under Article 127 (1) of the

[1] "Change in the important relation of rights to real estate" as referred to in Article 121 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Execution Act, which provides the grounds for filing an objection against a sale permit, refers to the case where the purchaser fails to acquire ownership or significantly changes the right to take over real estate due to the lack of ownership or the significant increase in the burden of sale of real estate, even if the real estate is not physically damaged, even if there is no physical damage to the real estate, an application for purchase is filed with the knowledge that the existence of senior collateral security has ceased to exist, or that there is no lien on the real estate, and thus the sale permit decision has been made, but the prohibition of disposal or provisional registration is also made, or there is no lien on the real estate thereafter, due to the extinguishment of senior collateral security.

[2] The case holding that the reason that the appraisal of the price by applying the object of sale, which is a neighborhood living facility, to the auction procedure of real estate, was not a ground for revocation of the decision of permission for sale under Article 127 (1) of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Articles 121 subparag. 6 and 127(1) of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Articles 121 subparag. 6 and 127(1) of the Civil Execution Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Mutual Savings Bank

Seoul Central District Court Order 2005Ra158 dated June 13, 2005

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. Article 127 (1) of the Civil Execution Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to an auction procedure to exercise the right to real estate under Article 268 of the Civil Execution Act, provides that "where the facts provided for in subparagraph 6 of Article 121 are revealed after a decision on permit for sale becomes final and conclusive, the purchaser may file an application for cancellation of the decision on permit for sale until he pays the price." Article 121 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Execution Act provides that "where the facts that the real estate have been significantly damaged or the significant relation of rights to the real estate have changed due to a natural disaster or other causes not attributable to himself/herself are discovered in the course of the auction procedure," as one of the grounds for objection to the permit for sale." In this context, even if there is no physical damage to the real estate, even if the existence of the senior collateral has ceased to exist, the right to prohibit disposal or provisional registration or the right to the real estate with the knowledge that there is no right to the real estate, and thus, a change in disposal or provisional registration or the right to the real estate exists.

2. According to the records, the Re-Appellant's evaluation of the price on the premise that the real estate in this case was a business facility, but it was revealed that it was actually a neighborhood living facility, and thus there was a decrease in the exchange value. Thus, in conducting the evaluation of the object of sale, the Re-Appellant's determination of the price by applying the physical condition or use of the real estate and various regulations, etc. different from the actual condition is merely a reason for raising an objection against the sale permission under Article 121 subparagraph 5 of the Civil Execution Act. Thus, the Re-Appellant's acquisition of the right to take over the real estate cannot be deemed a significant change because the Re-Appellant's acquisition of the real estate ownership or a significant increase in the burden of the real estate is not a reason for revocation of the sale permission decision under Article 127 (1) of the Civil Execution Act.

The Supreme Court Order 2001Ma2652 Decided August 22, 2001 cited by the re-appellant as the ground for re-appeal is related to the case where the burden of successful bidder's real estate increases remarkably because of the change of the opposing power of the right of lease due to the extinguishment of senior collective security in the auction procedure under the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) prior to the enactment of the Civil Execution Act, although the Re-appellant was awarded a successful bid with the knowledge that the opposing power of the subordinated right is extinguished due to the existence of senior collective security in the auction procedure pursuant to the former Civil Procedure Act prior to

3. Therefore, the court below revoked the decision of the auction court that revoked the decision of permission for sale of this case and dismissed the application for cancellation of permission for sale of this case by the re-appellant, and there is no violation of law or case law as alleged in the grounds for re-appeal.

4. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)