In a case where a lessee, who has met the requirements for counterclaim under the Housing Lease Protection Act that was omitted in the report on the investigation into the current status of an enforcement officer and was not notified of the progress of the auction procedure by the court of auction, files a report on the right after the decision on permission for successful bid is made, whether

In order to file an immediate appeal against a decision of permission for a successful bid or a decision of permission for a successful bid under Article 607 subparagraph 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, such fact shall be attested until the decision of permission for a successful bid or the decision of permission for a successful bid is made. After the decision of permission for a successful bid or the decision of permission for a successful bid, any person who proves such fact cannot be deemed an interested party as provided in subparagraph 4. Thus, such immediate appeal is unlawful. Even if a lessee who has met the requirements for counterclaim under the Housing Lease Protection Act is a right holder of a real estate for auction purposes, such fact alone does not become an interested party, and only if he/she proves his/her right and reports it to the auction court, such report of right shall be deemed an interested party on his/her own responsibility, regardless of whether it is investigated and reported to the court of execution. Thus, regardless of whether it is investigated and reported to the lessee, an interested party cannot be deemed an interested party unless he/she proves his/her right to file an appeal against the decision of permission for a successful bid after the Supreme Court Rules without law.

Article 607 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 91Ma141 dated April 18, 1991 (Gong1991, 1591), Supreme Court Order 94Ma1465 and 1466 dated September 12, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2785), Supreme Court Order 94Ma1342 dated September 13, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 2786), Supreme Court Order 94Ma1455 dated September 14, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2787)

Re-appellant

Cheongju District Court Order 9Ra118 dated June 8, 1999

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In order to file an immediate appeal against a decision of permission for a successful bid or a decision of permission for a successful bid under Article 607 subparagraph 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, an interested person shall prove such fact until the decision of permission for a successful bid or the decision of permission for a successful bid is made. After the decision of permission for a successful bid or the decision of permission for a successful bid, any person who proves such fact cannot be deemed an interested person under subparagraph 4, and such immediate appeal is illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 94Ma1342, Sept. 13, 1994). Thus, even if a lessee who meets the requirements for counterclaim under the Housing Lease Protection Act is a right holder of real estate for an auction purpose, such fact does not naturally become an interested person, and only becomes an interested person upon proof of his/her right and report to the court of auction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 73Ma129, Sept. 9, 1973). Thus, such report of right cannot be made under his/her own responsibility for the lessee's or lessee's legal obligation to report the auction procedure.

According to the records, on March 30, 1997, the re-appellant entered into a lease agreement with the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 among the real estate of this case with a deposit amount of 8,00,000 won and completed a resident registration transfer report on January 19, 198. On March 30, 198, the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 were established in the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 did not file an appeal against the non-party 9's successful bid order on May 13, 1998, the above non-party 2 and the non-party 9's non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not file an appeal against the non-party 3's successful bid order on the non-party 1 and the court did not file an appeal against the non-party 2's non-party 2 and did not file an auction order.

Therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport and dismissed the appeal of this case is just, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)