Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. On January 5, 2002, the Plaintiff married with C on January 5, 2002, but married on April 3, 2018.

B. C filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking registration of cancellation of ownership (the Changwon District Court Decision 2017Da55087). On April 19, 2018, upon receiving a judgment against the said court, the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

Since then, on August 28, 2018, the Defendant filed an application with C for the determination of the amount of litigation costs (the Changwon District Court Decision 2018Da10220), and rendered a decision that C reimburses that the amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed by C from the above court is KRW 6,560,038 (hereinafter “instant decision”), which became final and conclusive as it is.

C. The Defendant, based on the executory exemplification of the instant decision, filed an application for the execution of seizure of corporeal movables in Busan Shipping Daegu D Apartment, and E, which are the Plaintiff’s domicile, which were classified as C’s residence based on the executory exemplification of the instant decision, and the Busan District Court’s branch branch branch enforcement officer, who was so delegated, seized corporeal movables in the attached list (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) on August 29, 2019.

(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 6 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff C was not in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, and the corporeal movables of this case are owned by the plaintiff alone, since it was not in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, and the compulsory execution of this case is unlawful.

B. Defendant C, who had been divorced from the Plaintiff in order to avoid compulsory execution against the obligees, was living in the Plaintiff’s domicile even thereafter, and maintained a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant corporeal movables constitute a married property of the Plaintiff and C, and the instant compulsory execution is lawful.

3. Determination

(a) Any one of the married couple;