An interested person who has a right to dispute the procedure of a successful bid contrary to the provisions of Articles 608(1), 616 and 631 of the Civil Procedure Act and the procedure of a successful bid against it.

The provisions of Articles 608(1), 616, and 631 of the Civil Procedure Act prevent an execution creditor from taking advantage of an unauthorized auction even though the execution creditor has no possibility of receiving repayment by enforcement, and avoid the result of forced by the creditor to recover the investment at a time contrary to his/her will, and is only a provision for protecting the creditor or execution creditor, and is not for protecting the creditor or execution creditor, and is not for the legal interest or right of the debtor or owner of the target real estate, so the debtor and owner do not constitute an interested party who can argue that there was an error in violation of the above provisions in the auction procedure.

Articles 608(1), 616, and 631 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Gwangju District Court Order 84Ra3 dated March 5, 1984

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to Articles 608(1), 616, and 631 of the Civil Procedure Act, the auction procedure shall proceed only when the court recognizes that there exists surplus with the repayment of all the expenses and all the expenses of the real estate preceding the creditor's claim at the minimum auction price. Thus, if the auction court continues the auction procedure without the possibility of surplus if the creditor reimburses all the expenses of the creditor's claim and all the expenses of the expenses of the procedure and claims which take priority over the creditor's claim like the lawsuit, the court does not violate the above provisions. However, each of the above provisions aims to avoid the creditor's forced to recover the investment at a time contrary to the creditor's intention, and it is reasonable to protect the creditor or the creditor, and it is not for the legal interest or right of the debtor or the owner of the target real estate. Thus, the re-appellant is not a debtor's owner of the auction of this case and it is not against the above parties' interest in the auction of this case.

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

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)