[1] In a case where a partition of co-owned property has commenced for an object under compulsory auction or auction procedure for exercising a security right, the method of proceeding the auction procedure

[2] In a case where the auction procedure for partition of co-owned property is initiated as to the whole subject matter while the compulsory auction or the auction procedure for exercising a security right is in progress for a part of the share of the subject matter, the method of proceeding the auction procedure, and in this case, whether the co-owner's preferential right to purchase under Article 1

[3] The case where a measure of an auction court, which resulted in a new result of setting the completion period to demand a distribution in a prior compulsory auction or auction procedure for exercising a security right by selling the whole object of co-owned property partition in accordance with the auction procedure, is legitimate

[1] Articles 87(1) and 274(2) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 269 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 87(1), 140, and 274(2) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 269 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 84, 87(1), 148, 268, and 274(2) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 269 of the Civil Act

Special Appellants

Suwon District Court Order 2013Ma1934 dated October 14, 2013

The special appeal is dismissed.

We examine the special grounds for appeal.

1. Article 87(1) of the Civil Execution Act provides that "if an application for other compulsory auction is filed with respect to any real estate for which the procedure for compulsory auction or auction for exercising a security right has already been commenced, the court shall again commence the auction, and the auction is conducted according to the execution procedure which has already been decided to commence the auction." Article 274(2) of the same Act provides that "if an auction procedure under a lien, etc. has commenced for compulsory auction or auction for exercising a security right against the object, it shall be suspended, and if an auction procedure for exercising a security right against the object is commenced, it shall continue to proceed with the procedure for compulsory auction or auction for exercising a security right (hereinafter referred to as "joint auction or auction for exercising a security right, etc.") for which the procedure for compulsory auction or auction for exercising a security right (hereinafter referred to as "joint auction or auction for exercising a security right"), even if the procedure for partition of co-owned property has been commenced later, it shall not proceed with the procedure for partition of co-owned property by combining the procedure for partition of co-owned property, such as co-owned property.

However, even if the auction court sells the whole object only according to the auction procedure for partition of co-owned property, and thereby newly set the completion period to demand a distribution in the procedure, such as a compulsory auction, if it does not affect the creditor's right to demand a distribution compared with the case where the completion period to demand a distribution set in the procedure, such as a prior compulsory auction against a part of the share of the object has been maintained, it cannot

2. A. The record reveals: (1) On June 30, 1998, the special appellant entered into an official gazette Construction Co., Ltd., other than the owner of the instant real estate, a lease on a deposit basis, and completed a lease on a deposit basis; (2) on March 24, 2011, the other party acquired 53.8/100 of shares of persons other than the above request for the co-owned property in the public auction procedure, and succeeded to the lessor status; (3) on December 2, 2012, the special appellant acquired 46.2/100 of shares of the construction company in the Official Gazette with regard to the instant real estate in India; (4) on the basis of the part corresponding to shares of the other party in his deposit for return of his deposit; (5) on the other party’s co-owned property in the auction procedure, the special auction procedure for the co-owned property of this case becomes final and conclusive by the other party to the co-owned property; and (4) on the auction procedure of this case, the other party to the co-owned property of this case.

B. Examining these facts in light of the above legal principles, even if the auction court of this case decided to follow the procedure of partition of co-owned property, it does not have any influence on the right of special appellant's dividends. Thus, the above measures cannot be deemed unlawful.

3. Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)