logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1980. 10. 17.자 79마381 결정
[부동산임의경매개시결정에대한이의신청기각결정에대한재항고][공1980.12.1.(645),13294]
Main Issues

The deposit of the successful bid price under Article 6 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Civil Dispute Disputes in Summary Procedure, the designation of the date of payment by the court of auction and legal relations

Summary of Decision

Article 6 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Civil Dispute Cases in Summary Procedure only purports that in cases where the auction court has determined the decision of approval of a successful bid, and the date of payment is not designated and notified even after the date of payment, the successful bidder may pay the successful bid price at any time to the court within two weeks from the date of receipt of the decision of approval of the successful bid, and the date of payment is not designated and notified even after the lapse of the above two weeks, the validity of the designation of the date of payment by the auction court after the lapse of the above two weeks shall not be excluded. Thus, the deposit of the successful bid price before the designation of the date of payment shall be effective, but the deposit after

[Reference Provisions]

Article 6(2)

Re-appellant

Re-appellant

The order of the court below

Seoul Central District Court Order 79Ra194 Dated October 11, 1979

Text

The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

Re-appellant's re-appeal ground is examined.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the auction court dismissed the auction price of this case to the non-party who is the highest bidder on May 10, 1979, and the owner of the auction real estate (the re-appellant of this case) appealed against the above auction price decision but rejected the auction price (the notification June 1, 1979) under the Act on Special Measures for the Payment of Loans by Financial Institutions, the re-appellant filed a special appeal and dismissed the auction price, and sent the auction record to the auction court on July 20 of the same year because the above auction price decision became final and conclusive and conclusive after the auction price was 14,730,720 won as of July 27 of the same year, and the auction court did not receive the auction price of this case from the 20th auction court on the same date after deducting the ownership of the above auction price of 14,596,526 won as of August 28, 200, which is part of the auction price.

According to Article 6 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Real Estate Disputes, the real estate auction court shall determine the successful bidder's auction price and set the date of auction two weeks prior to the date on which the decision to permit the auction becomes final and conclusive and is delivered. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that if the court fails to set the above date within the period referred to in the preceding paragraph, the successful bidder may pay the auction price at any time at the court. In addition to the purpose of preventing delay in the settlement of civil cases as provided in Article 1 of the above Act, and promoting the settlement of disputes, the real estate auction court shall set the auction price and the date of auction after the lapse of six weeks from the date on which the decision to permit the auction becomes final and conclusive, and the auction court shall interpret the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act to the effect that the successful bidder may not pay the auction price at any time after the lapse of six weeks from the date on which the auction price is to be paid at any time after the expiration of six weeks from the date on which the auction price is to be paid at the court.

Therefore, if the date and time of the deposit of the successful bid price in this case was notified of the date and time of the payment of the successful bid price, it constitutes Article 6 (2) of the Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Auction Price. However, if the date and time were to be notified of the date and time of the payment of the successful bid price, the payment due to the deposit will take effect only after the date of the payment period designated by the court (10:00 on August 31, 1979).

However, the record reveals that the successful bidder of this case received the notice of the date of payment of the auction price of this case on August 23, 1979 11:00 on the date of payment of the auction price of this case on the 31.10:00 of the same month from the 31.4. 10:00 of the same month, and the notice of the date of payment and the date of distribution on the 1979.8.23 of the same year. According to the deposit document of the successful bidder attached to the record, it is not clear whether the successful bidder deposited the auction price at least several times of the same month because the consignee is not a prior person, but it is not difficult to say that the successful bidder deposited the auction price after the 11:00 of the date of payment was notified.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the payment of the successful bid price by the deposit of this case constitutes the payment to the court under Article 6 (2) of the Special Act on the Settlement of Special Cases is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 6 of the above Special Act, which affected the conclusion of the decision. Therefore, the appeal that points out this issue is justifiable (it can be known that the court below stated that the application was made for the payment of the successful bid price, but the date was not designated according to the fact that the reason for the deposit of the successful bid price was stated, and there is no other evidence as to whether the successful bid price was paid to the court, and therefore there is no other evidence as to whether the above deposit is legitimate as the payment of the successful bid price) shall not be reversed.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)

arrow