Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Defendant is a creditor who holds an executive title against E (Seoul District Court Decision 2019Da11094 Decided February 5, 2020).

On April 3, 2020, for the execution of a claim based on the above judgment, the Defendant seized the corporeal movables listed in the attached list in the F apartment and G located in the Sungnam-gu party branch of Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”).

(C) The District Court H. b.

The plaintiff is the legal spouse of E.

E resided together with the Plaintiff at the above domicile on June 12, 2018, and changed the resident registration address to "Seoul-si I, Gyeonggi-do, which is a residential domicile."

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant corporeal movables cannot be deemed public property with E or jointly possessed with E, since they were separated from E and 2018.

(b) Ccorporeal movables under a co-ownership of the debtor and his spouse, which are possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed with his spouse, may be seized.

(Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act). On the other hand, the property acquired by one side of the married couple in his/her own name and the property acquired in his/her own name during the marriage shall be the property unique to the property, and the property of which it is unclear who belongs to

(Article 830 of the Civil Act).

The instant corporeal movables are presumed to be public property of the Plaintiff, the husband and wife, and the E, and around June 12, 2018, the E changed the domicile of the resident registration to “Seoul-si I, Gyeonggi-do, the domicile of the domicile of his/her domicile,” and only the description of evidence No. 5-2 of the evidence No. 5-a-be alone, E is away from the Plaintiff

It is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff does not reside in the plaintiff's domicile.

E’s father (the head of the plaintiff) is remarkably true in this court that he/she is conducting the lawsuit of this case as the plaintiff’s attorney, and even according to his/her statement, E is on behalf of the plaintiff who is a long-term overseas departure.