[1] In a case where the original copy of an executory judgment stating the purport of ordering the suspension of compulsory execution is submitted, whether it constitutes a ground for objection against the permission for sale (affirmative), and in such a case, whether the discretion of the court of execution is permissible as to the decision not to grant the permission

[2] The case reversing the order of the court below that held that in case where the debtor submitted the original copy of the decision of suspension of compulsory execution to the court of execution prior to the date of sale decision even though the highest bid price was made at the first auction date, but prior to the date of sale decision, the decision of suspension of compulsory execution should be limited to the failure of the decision

[1] Article 49 subparag. 1, Article 121 subparag. 1, Article 120(2), and Article 123 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Article 49 subparag. 1, Article 121 subparag. 1, Article 120(2), and Article 123 of the Civil Execution Act

Re-appellant

Incheon District Court Order 2008Ra344 dated November 6, 2008

The order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds for reappeal.

According to the records, on March 5, 2008, the execution court submitted the original copy of the Seoul District Court 2007Kahap9005 ruling with executory power on March 5, 2008 (2008.104), which was the debtor's second sale date (208.30). The court below rejected the execution decision by changing the status of the court of execution to the sale of non-applicant-dong, Jung-gu, Incheon District Court (2007Kahap905), which was the debtor's second sale date (2008. 30. 208. 30), which was the first sale date of the above auction procedure (208. 208. 30. 208. 7. 2008. 7. 7. 2008. 7. 2008.

However, the court below's measures are hard to accept for the following reasons.

Since several interests conflict and conflict in the compulsory execution procedure, it is necessary to promptly determine the legal relations of interested persons and to expect the progress of the procedure, so it is desirable to strictly interpret and observe the provisions of the Civil Execution Act concerning the compulsory execution procedure as much as possible. In the case where the “original copy of a judgment with executory power stating the purport of ordering the suspension of compulsory execution” under Article 49 subparag. 1 of the Civil Execution Act is submitted, it constitutes a ground for raising an objection against the permission for sale as it constitutes “when it is impossible to continue execution” under Article 121 subparag. 1 of the Civil Execution Act, and such reason constitutes a ground for raising an objection against the permission for sale. Such reason shall be applied until the permission for sale is granted (Article 120(2) of the Civil Execution Act). In such a case, the execution court shall make a decision not to permit the sale, either ex officio or by a party’s objection (Article 123

Nevertheless, in such a case, the court below determined that the execution court shall not make a decision of rejection of sale, unless the highest bidder clearly expresses his intention to escape from the status of the execution court, but it shall be limited to the failure of the decision of rejection of sale itself, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the grounds for rejection of sale, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for reappeal on

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 Young-ran (Presiding Justice)