민사집행절차에서 저당권자의 지위 - 절차보장과 실권의 관점에서 -

I would like to look at the issue of whether or not to grant mortgagee’s unjust enrichment claims after the completion of the dividend procedure from the viewpoint of procedure security and forfeiture of civil execution procedure. First of all, i investigated the procedure security of civil execution procedure and the conditions of forfeiture through the structure of Article 267 which the civil executive law admits forfeiture. In other words, the provisions of Article 267 of the Civil Execution Act was established to accept the precedent case theory based on the theory of forfeiture and to execute security interests even in the case of auction sales, to partially protect the buyer's position by admitting forfeiture. In order to support forfeiture, the Civil Execution Act makes it possible to ask the cancellation of the auction procedure by a simple method of filing an objection against the auction commencement decision (Article 265), promptly auctioning a certain document Procedures can be stopped / canceled and procedures are prepared (Article 266). In connection with unjust enrichment claims after the end of the dividend procedure, the Civil Execution Act establishes procedures to rectify dividend errors within the dividend procedure, prescribing appeals for dividend due dates, investigations from dividend dates, dividend objections and dividend objections suit. furthermore, since the procedure for enabling the mortgage owner to sufficiently grasp the situation of the object to be executed by the entire execution procedure is secured, I think that we can pursue the responsibility for it. Therefore, it is reasonable to deny the unjust enrichment claims of mortgagee who does not oppose dividends.