Where the highest bidder fails to perform his/her obligation to pay the purchase price in the voluntary auction procedure and the re-sale procedure is conducted, if the court changes the minimum sale price ex officio due to changes in the legal relationship on part of the real estate, whether the former purchaser may seek the return of the guarantee for purchase

Article 113 of the Civil Execution Act, Articles 63 and 64 of the Rules for Civil Execution

[Re-Appellant]

Gwangju District Court Order 2007Ra271 dated July 9, 2008

The reappeal is dismissed. Of the judgment of the court below, the re-appeal is corrected to “ September 18, 2007” as “ September 21, 2007.”

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In light of the fact that the guarantee system for an application for purchase is aimed at ensuring the propriety of the sale by excluding an application for purchase by a person with no strong intention of purchase, the buyer is not required to return the guarantee for the application for purchase in the re-sale procedure conducted because the buyer fails to fully perform his/her duty by the payment deadline, and the same applies even if the legal relationship on part of the real estate has changed in the process of re-sale and the court changes the minimum sale price ex officio.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below held that the Re-Appellant provided a guarantee for purchase on April 25, 2002 with respect to the real estate of this case (the total size of land is 2,244m2) and became the highest bidder on April 25, 2002, but the court of execution did not fully perform the obligation to pay purchase price on April 10, 2003, which is the designated payment date. On May 24, 2003, the court of execution did not accept the re-sale of this case as a road around March 24, 2004, which is 23m3m2 of the real estate of this case, and the court of execution did not recognize the fact that the Re-Appellant did not change the minimum sale price of the real estate of this case to the road of this case, which is excluding the minimum sale price of the real estate of this case, and the court of execution did not recognize the return of the remaining real estate of this case ex officio 207m27.

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

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)