In case where the auction court designates the date of payment of the auction price and accordingly the successful bidder fully pays the auction price even though the decision of suspension of compulsory execution was submitted before the successful bid price is paid, whether an interested person can contest the measures such as setting the date of payment of the auction court due to an objection or an immediate appeal against execution or revocation of the disposition

Although a decision of suspension of compulsory execution, which is a document of Article 510 subparag. 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, is submitted before the successful bid price is paid after the decision of permission of successful bidding, and the procedure of compulsory auction is necessary to be suspended. However, if the auction court designates the date of payment and accordingly the successful bidder paid the successful bid price in full, it is illegal to designate the date of payment of the successful bid price. However, in light of the purport of each provision of Article 646-2 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 146-3(1) and (3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, after the payment of the successful bid price has been made in full, the interested person cannot raise an objection to the execution under Article 504 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the illegal disposition, further seek correction by an immediate appeal

Articles 504 and 511 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 94Ra895 Dated August 12, 1994

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

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below and the reasoning of the first instance court which maintained the auction date, the auction court of this case decided to permit the auction of this case to the re-appellant and the non-appellant on June 26, 192. When the date of payment of the price became final and conclusive on July 15 of the same year, the debtor filed a lawsuit of objection against the creditor on the claim with executory power of 90 Gahap2876, which became final and conclusive on June 14 of the same year, and then the court below rejected the above auction decision of this case on November 21 of the same year, which became final and conclusive on the date of the second instance court's decision to suspend the auction of this case. The court below rejected the auction order of this case on the same date as the date of the second instance court's decision to suspend the auction of this case, and notified the non-appellant and the non-applicant of the order to suspend the auction of this case on the same date as the date of the second instance court's decision to suspend the auction of this case.

However, as seen above, the auction court submitted a decision of suspension of compulsory execution, which is a document of Article 510 subparag. 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, before the successful bid price is paid, and neglected the procedure of compulsory auction. If the successful bidder designated the date of payment and paid the successful bid price in full, if the successful bidder paid the successful bid price, the designation of the date of payment should be illegal. However, in light of the purport of each provision of Article 646-2 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 146-3(1) and (3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, after the successful bid price is paid in full, the interested person cannot raise an objection to the execution under Article 504 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the illegal dispositions, and further file an application for revocation of the execution disposition under Article 511 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, even after the successful bid price is fully paid, an objection may be raised against such unlawful disposition until the dividend procedure is completed, and the court below's decision maintaining the decision of the auction court that held that an application may also be filed for revocation of the execution disposition under Article 511 of the Civil Procedure Act is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to an objection against execution and revocation of disposition to revoke the execution, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the argument on this point is with merit.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)