An interested person who may contest the meaning of Articles 608(1), 616, and 631 of the Civil Procedure Act and the procedure for adjudication against a breach thereof.

The provisions of Articles 608(1), 616, and 631 of the Civil Procedure Act prohibit an execution creditor from taking advantage of an unauthorized auction even though the execution creditor does not have any possibility of receiving repayment by enforcement, and avoid the same unfair result as the execution creditor is forced to recover the investment at a time contrary to his will, and is only a provision to protect preferential creditors or seizure creditors, and is not for the legal interest or rights of the debtor or seizure creditor. Thus, the debtor and the owner of the object of auction in a compulsory auction do not constitute an interested party who can argue that there was an error in violation of the above provisions in the auction procedure.

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

Supreme Court Order 81Ma158 Decided August 29, 1981 81, 81Ma158 Decided June 19, 1984, Supreme Court Order 84Ma238 Decided August 23, 1984

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 87Ra446 dated July 30, 1987

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The provisions of Articles 608(1), 616, and 631 of the Civil Procedure Act are to prevent a seizure creditor from taking place an unauthorized auction despite the absence of any possibility of receiving repayment by enforcement, and to avoid the same unfair result as forced by a preferential creditor to recover investment at a time contrary to his will, and to protect preferential creditors or execution creditors, not for the legal interest or rights of debtors or owners of real estate, but for the party members. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Order 81Ma158, Aug. 29, 1981; Supreme Court Order 84Ma238, Jun. 19, 1984; 84Ma238, Aug. 23, 1984; 84Ma454, Aug. 23, 1984). Thus, the court below's decision is justified in holding that the interested parties in the compulsory auction of this case are not inconsistent with the above decision.

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

Justices Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)