[2] Where several co-owned shares are acquired by the execution obligor in sequential order, and the execution obligee sells only a part of the co-owned shares when the execution obligor executes compulsory execution as to the whole co-owned shares of the execution obligor, where there is no possibility for the execution obligee to receive dividends even from the proceeds of sale of the remaining shares, whether the auction for the whole co-owned shares constitutes an auction where the remaining part of

[2] If an execution obligor acquires several co-ownership in sequential order, and an execution obligee executes compulsory execution on the whole co-ownership of an execution obligor's co-ownership, even if the legal relationship between each of the several co-ownership shares differs, it is a compulsory execution against one object. Thus, even if there is no possibility for remaining shares if there is no possibility for an execution obligee to sell only some of the co-ownership shares, if there is a possibility that the execution obligee will receive a dividend from the proceeds of sale

1. As to the misapprehension of legal principle as to confusion

In principle, in cases where the ownership of any article and other real rights belong to the same person, such limited real rights shall be extinguished by confusion, but it shall not be extinguished by confusion in cases where it is deemed necessary to maintain the limited real rights for the benefit of the principal or a third person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da18643, Jul. 10, 1998; 98Do4022, Apr. 13, 1999).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the right to collateral security of Nonparty 1, which was set on a partial share of the auction object of this case, does not extinguish due to confusion, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to confusion as alleged

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 102 of the Civil Execution Act

A. An executor acquires several co-ownership shares in successive order by an executor, and where an execution creditor executes compulsory execution on the whole co-ownership of an executor’s co-ownership, even if the legal relationship between each of the several co-ownership shares differs, this is a compulsory execution against a single subject matter. Thus, even if there is no possibility for a creditor to sell only some of the co-ownership shares, if there is no possibility for an execution creditor to receive dividends even from the proceeds of sale of the remaining shares, it shall be deemed an auction at which an auction on the whole co-ownership share is anticipated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2012Ma

나. 원심결정 이유와 기록에 의하면, ① 소외 2는 2004. 11. 5. 이 사건 부동산의 등기부 갑구 순위번호 3번 지분을, 2007. 3. 8. 같은 등기부 갑구 순위번호 14번 지분을, 2007. 10. 18. 같은 등기부 갑구 순위번호 18번 지분을 각 순차로 취득한 사실, ② 소외 2는 그중 3번, 14번 지분에 관하여 2007. 3. 8. 소외 1을 채권자로, 채권최고액을 2억 7,000만 원으로 하는 근저당권설정등기를, 2007. 3. 21. 소외 1을 채권자로, 채권최고액을 2억 4,000만 원으로 하는 근저당권설정등기를 마친 사실(다만 위 각 근저당권설정등기는 2010. 12. 9. 3번 지분 부분의 포기로 인하여 14번 지분에 관한 것으로 변경되었다), ③ 주식회사 보성레미콘은 2008. 4. 21. 소외 2에 대한 채권에 기하여 3번, 14번, 18번 지분에 관한 가압류등기를 마친 사실(다만 위 가압류등기는 2010. 12. 9. 3번 지분 부분의 포기로 인하여 14번 및 18번 지분에 관한 것으로 변경되었다), ④ 소외 2는 2008. 5. 2. 소외 1에게 3번, 14번, 18번 지분 전부를 이전하여 주기 위하여 등기부 갑구 순위번호 25번으로 3번, 14번, 18번 지분의 합인 51,208/65,000을 공유지분으로, 매매를 원인으로 하는 지분이전등기를 마쳐준 사실, ⑤ 주식회사 보성레미콘으로부터 소외 2에 대한 확정판결에 기한 채권을 양도받은 재항고인은 2011. 6. 28. 위 51,208/65,000 지분 중 그때까지 처분되지 않고 남아 있다고 판단한 43,110/65,000 지분 전부에 관하여 강제경매신청을 하였고, 집행법원은 2011. 6. 29. 그에 관하여 경매개시결정을 한 사실, ⑥ 그런데 18번 지분의 일부 및 3번 지분이 제3자에게 순차 처분됨으로써 이 사건 경매개시결정일 당시까지 실제로 처분되지 않고 남아 있던 25번 지분은 36,752/65,000(= 14번 지분 6,358/65,000 + 18번 지분 30,394/65,000)이었고, 이에 집행법원은 2011. 7. 8. 경매목적물을 36,752/65,000 지분으로 경정하는 결정을 한 사실, ⑦ 집행법원은 2012. 1. 4. 매각가격을 183,448,650원으로 하는 매각허가결정을 하였는데 그중 14번 지분에 해당하는 금액은 31,736,137원(= 183,448,650원 × 6,358/36,752)이고 18번 지분에 해당하는 금액은 151,712,512원(= 183,448,650원 × 30,394/36,752)인 사실을 알 수 있다.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, Nonparty 2 acquired shares No. 14 and No. 18, and the re-appellant’s application for a compulsory auction for all shares No. 14 and shares No. 18, upon the provisional attachment for shares No. 14 and the provisional attachment for shares No. 18, the auction of this case initiated by Nonparty 2 for the compulsory auction for all shares No. 36,752/65,000, which consist of shares No. 36,752/65,000 of the above shares, is an auction for one object. The auction of this case is 31,736,137 won of the sale amount corresponding to shares No. 14, which takes precedence over the claim of the creditor. Thus, even if it is not possible to sell only shares No. 14,51,712,512, the remaining auction is likely to receive dividends from the total auction of this case.

D. Nevertheless, the court below determined that the auction of this case was an auction in violation of Article 102 of the Civil Execution Act and revoked the decision of the court of first instance that approved the decision of permission for sale on the ground that there is no possibility of remaining in the share No. 14. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 102 of the Civil Execution Act, which affected the conclusion of the

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)