서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.12 2017가단5196257



1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Gaso6483 with respect to B is an executory exemplification of the judgment.


1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 20, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against B, who is the Plaintiff’s husband, with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da6076483, the Defendant rendered a favorable judgment that “B shall pay to the Defendant 7,866,436 won and 2,035,351 won which is calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 20, 2016 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On September 27, 2017, the Defendant entrusted the enforcement officer with the execution of the instant winning judgment under the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch 2017No. 2807, and the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables on the objects listed in the attached list of the temporary arrest (hereinafter “instant movable property”) at the Plaintiff’s domicile (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”).

C. B and the Plaintiff are legally married couples, but they have failed to perform their business since before 2003, and have been temporarily living until now since 2005.

Since then, the plaintiff lives with his children, and the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff as household effects that the plaintiff directly purchased or purchased by the plaintiff C, who is the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, witness C's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the compulsory execution of this case against each of the movable property of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff, based on the original copy of the judgment of this case against the debtor B, is illegal as a compulsory execution against the article not owned by the debtor, and thus, it shall be

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.