Where an appeal is permitted by the completion of the appeal, the designation of the date of payment by the court of auction on the premise that the decision to permit the auction becomes final and conclusive prior to such date and the validity of the payment on such date.

The decision of approval of a successful bid on May 17, 1968 was returned to a final and conclusive state due to the plaintiff's appeal by an application for subsequent completion on June 8, 1968. Thus, the designation of the date of the auction court under the premise that the decision of approval of the successful bid becomes final and conclusive on the end of May of the same year and the payment made on the said date is an invalidation procedure in which no effect may arise.

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Central District Court (68Ga12566) in the first instance trial

The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

On June 5, 1968, the Plaintiff received the Sungbuk Branch of Seoul District Court from the Sungbuk Branch of Seoul District Court on June 5, 1968, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 followed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the decision of successful bid permission on May 17, 1968 as to the above real estate as No. 4440, Oct. 28, 1968, and the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to sale on May 30, 1968, respectively.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants.

The defendants shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The purport of the registration of ownership transfer as stated in the attached list is without dispute between the parties. The above real estate was originally owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was not subject to an order to sell the real estate at the same time as the above 6th auction by public notice. The plaintiff was not subject to an order to sell the real estate at the same time on the 19th anniversary of the expiration of the auction period. The plaintiff was not subject to an order to sell the real estate at the same time on the 19th auction by public notice. The plaintiff was not subject to an order to sell the real estate at the same time on the 19th auction by public notice. The plaintiff was not subject to an order to sell the real estate at the same time on the 19th auction by public notice. The plaintiff was not subject to an order to sell the real estate at the same time on the 19th auction by public notice. The plaintiff was not subject to an order to sell the real estate at the same time on the 19th auction date, and the plaintiff was not subject to an order to sell the real estate at the same time.

Therefore, the decision of approval of the successful bid on May 17, 1968 was returned to a final and conclusive state due to the plaintiff's appeal based on the application for the completion of the appeal filed on June 8, 1968. Thus, the decision of approval of the successful bid was made on the premise that the decision of approval of the successful bid becomes final and conclusive on the end of May of the same year, and the date of exhibition by the auction court on the premise that the decision of approval of the successful bid becomes final and conclusive on the end of May of the same year and the payment of the price made by the

In addition, since the successful bidder acquires the ownership of the property at auction by fully paying the successful bid price on the date of payment of the price designated by the auction court after the decision of permission of successful bid becomes final and conclusive, Defendant 1 cannot acquire the ownership of the property at auction. Accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer in the exhibition of Defendant 1, which was made by the defendant on the ground that the payment of the price is lawful and that the defendant acquired the ownership of the real property at auction is not a cause for the registration of ownership transfer in the exhibition of Defendant 1. Since the reappeal against the decision of rejection of the appeal by the plaintiff's request for the subsequent completion of the auction was dismissed, and the decision of commencement of auction on the real property at auction was revoked after the auction court again followed the procedure of the decision of permission of successful bid, Defendant 1 as the successful bidder

The defendants, as in the case of this case, are treated as a final and conclusive decision to grant a successful bid and set the due date for the payment of the successful bid price and so long as the successful bidder completely paid the successful bid price, if a final and conclusive decision to grant a successful bid becomes final and conclusive after a final and conclusive decision to grant a successful bid is dismissed by an application to pay the successful bid price, the designation of the new date for the payment of the price and the payment of the price, etc. are effective as new payment of the price is not required. Therefore, the successful bidder claims that ownership of the property at the successful bid shall be acquired by the successful bidder. However, in a case where a final and conclusive decision to grant a successful bid price is accepted by an application to pay the successful bid price, the court shall take all the subsequent procedures under the Auction Act, and such argument

Thus, the registration of transfer of ownership to Defendant 1's public health in wartime is a registration without any cause, and therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership to Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, which is based on the premise that Defendant 1 has ownership to the real estate in this case, is also a registration without any cause for the remainder of the registration. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the registration in this case is reasonable, and this conclusion is justified, and the judgment of the court below in this conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Judge)