Whether or not a person who has purchased the auction real estate from a successful bidder can request the delivery of the auction real estate in subrogation of the successful bidder.

Since a request for delivery of auction real estate under this Article belongs to the right to the auction procedure permitted to the successful bidder, even if a third party has acquired the ownership of the auction real estate from the successful bidder, the third party may not make a request for delivery under this Article on the ground of succession.

Article 647 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Respondent 1 and 8 others

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 66Ra181 delivered on June 9, 1966

The reappeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for reappeal:

(1) Since the successful bidder pays the successful bid price in full and seeks an order of delivery is by ownership, the re-appellant who purchased the successful bidder's real estate from the successful bidder is entitled to seek an order of delivery by succeeding to all the rights pursuant to the ownership held by the successful bidder, who is the former owner.

(2) In addition, the successful bidder is obligated to receive the order of delivery of the auction real estate for the re-appellant who purchased the auction real estate, and the re-appellant is not obligated to deliver it to the re-appellant, and as such, the re-appellant applied for the order of delivery on behalf of the successful bidder other than the appeal in lieu of the successful bidder, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and by dismissing the appeal of the re

However, since the claim for delivery of auction real estate under Article 647 of the Civil Procedure Act belongs to the right to the successful bidder in the auction procedure permitted to the successful bidder, even if the third party acquired the ownership of the auction real estate from the successful bidder, it is impossible to make a request for delivery under the above Article on the ground that the third party succeeds to the ownership of the auction real estate, and the argument (2) cannot be a legitimate ground for re-appeal

Therefore, the reappeals are all groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-sub (Presiding Judge)