Since the auction of other s right is originally null, it is said that the judicial decision of an object can t inquire the responsibility about security of seller according to the article 578 of civil law but can only demand the repayment of wrongful profit to debtor or creditor. The article 570 of civil law recognizes the responsibility about security of seller in the case of the article 569 of civil law, and the article 578 of one accepts it as well in the article 570 of one. Then buyer won t be able to require the responsibility about security of seller for the reason that the auction of other s right is originally null, but it is right that buyer ask seller of the responsibility about security of seller because the auction of other s right is a sort of valid sales contract. Auction being null, buyer cancels it. And first he asks creditor or guarantor of the security of the responsible about security of seller. After that he will be able to ask it of the creditor who shared the money that the buyer paid. It is natural that the responsibility about security of seller is accepted because it would be better for buyer to ask seller of the responsibility about security of seller than about the repayment of wrongful profit of one considering the buyer is more profitable in the scope of repayment and effect of law. I think it is proper that the rightful person who hasn t had the lawsuit of the third person s demurrer is deprived of the substantial right by means of the restraint of effective right after closing auction, because the lawsuit of the third person s demurrer is secured by the law of execution of civil affairs. As a result, it is good that the rightful person who lose his substantial right is recompensed wrongful profit from the creditor or the debtor who get money through auction. Therefore, I propose that the judicial decision of an object be changed because it is wrong.
Ⅰ. 대상판결(대법원 2004. 6. 24. 선고 2003다59259 판결)
Ⅱ. 대상판결에 대한 검토
Ⅲ. 결론
참고문헌