任意競賣節次의 配當에 관한 몇 가지 爭點

A Few Points at Issue of the Dividend Related Procedures of the Sale at Auction for Performance of the Lien

In the practice of compulsory execution, many people(Creditors) are requesting auction or demanding dividend against the same debtor s property thus there are many confronting cases of interests among them. In this case of compulsory execution for the same property, the debtor s property is inefficiency in order to satisfy with the large number of creditors, which is required to have dividend to those creditors, it is an important issue to determine the order of dividend and the amount for the creditors. There are a few points at issue caused by debate theologically in case of determining an order of dividend and amount, the points at issue taking the most important roles in determining of a fair handling method to a large number of creditors in the practice of compulsory execution as a final means of realization of the right. What we are going to cover in this letter is that a few points at issue of the dividend related procedures of the sale at auction for performance of lien, suggestion of private opinions upon reviewing stand point of view a precedent of theory and the supreme court in regards to each of points at issue. Firstly, whether or not the creditor is able to expand of request amount later, which is recorded on the application form of the sale at auction in the auction procedures for the lien practice, secondly, whether or not the said creditor is able to request dividend for the remaining objective security lien after recording a partial requesting amount among the objective security lien on the auction application form, and in relation with the above mentioned points at issue, whether or not able to apply double auction for the performance of the remaining objective security lien after recording partial request amount amongst the objective security lien on the auction application form, in case of the person who has the right of priority was not able to receive the dividend by making an erroneous precedence in the dividend procedures, reviewing this orderly regarding whether he/she can claim for the excessive profit or more.