A. In case where an original copy of a decision ordering a temporary suspension of auction procedure, which is a document under Article 510 subparag. 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, has been submitted before a successful bidder pays a successful bid price after the decision of approval of auction procedure, whether the auction court can proceed with the auction procedure as it is and receive the successful bid price from the successful bidder

B. Whether an auction court may deny the legal effect that was caused by an executing act in the event that the auction procedure was completed despite the existence of a ground for suspending the compulsory execution, but an objection to the execution by an interested party or an immediate appeal, etc. is not satisfied (negative)

A. Under the current Civil Procedure Act and the rules of civil procedure, in the case of a compulsory auction, a successful bidder acquires ownership to the auction real estate at the time of the payment of the successful bid price. Thus, even after the decision of permission of auction in the compulsory auction procedure, a successful bidder may submit the original copy of the decision ordering a temporary suspension of the auction procedure, which is a document under Article 510 subparag. 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, to the auction court, until the successful bidder pays the successful bid price. In this case, the auction court is illegal to suspend the progress of the auction procedure and to receive the bid price from the successful bidder

B. An interested party may raise an objection to the execution stipulated in Article 504 of the same Act in the case where the auction procedure proceeds by setting the date for the suspension of compulsory execution, setting the date for the payment, receiving the payment, etc. notwithstanding the existence of a ground for suspending compulsory execution. If the auction procedure is completed without such an objection, the legal effect arising from the execution cannot be denied.

(a)Article 510(a) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 646bis of the same Act; Article 146bis of the Rules of Civil Procedure; Articles 504 and 517 of the Civil Procedure Act;

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 92Ra1481 delivered on June 10, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 646-2 of the amended Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201, Jan. 13, 1990) provides that a successful bidder shall acquire a right to auction when he pays the successful bid price in full, and Article 146-3 (1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (amended by Supreme Court Rule No. 1183, Dec. 30, 1991) provides that a successful bidder shall submit documents under Article 510 subparag. 1, 2, and 5 of the Act before the successful bidder pays the successful bid price. Thus, in cases of a compulsory auction under the amended Civil Procedure Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, the successful bidder shall acquire the ownership of the auction real estate when he pays the successful bid price. Even after the decision of permission was rendered in the compulsory auction procedure, the court may submit an original copy of the decision ordering temporary suspension of auction procedure, which is a document of the auction procedure, until the successful bidder pays the successful bid price, and in such case, the court may suspend the auction procedure without any justifiable reason for suspending the auction procedure.

Therefore, as in the case of this case, the auction court did not suspend the auction procedure as in the judgment, and the auction procedure is conducted without any objection to the execution from interested parties, and the defendant paid the auction price on the payment date set by the auction court and completed the auction procedure, and the auction procedure is terminated, the defendant, the successful bidder, cannot be deemed to have lawfully acquired the ownership of the land of this case, and the plaintiff cannot seek the execution of the cancellation registration procedure on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership of the defendant's title to the land of this case is null and void on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership of the land of this case is conducted on the ground that the auction court's illegal auction procedure is conducted. The

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)