A. On March 15, 2019, the Defendant filed a demand procedure against C for the payment of user fee claim No. 2019 tea1294, the lower court decided on March 15, 2019 that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 7 million and its delay damages” (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order was finalized.

B. On May 9, 2019, the Defendant seized each of the movables listed in the separate sheet, E apartment, and F, which the Defendant and C resided in, as the title of execution, with the original copy of the instant payment order as the title of execution.

C. Among each movable set forth in the separate sheet, each movable set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (hereinafter “each of the instant movable property”) is the movable property owned by the Plaintiff purchased by the Plaintiff’s credit card on April 29, 2016 and June 26, 2016.

[Evidence Evidence: Descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, compulsory execution against each of the instant movables owned by the plaintiff by the original copy of the instant payment order against C against the debtor C is unlawful as it is not a compulsory execution against the goods owned by the debtor, and thus, it shall be dismissed.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the compulsory execution against each of the above movables is legitimate since each of the instant movables is the co-owned property of the obligor C and the Plaintiff and his spouse.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the instant movables is owned by the Plaintiff and C, and rather, it is recognized that each of the instant movables is owned by the Plaintiff based on the above recognized facts and recognized evidence, so the Defendant’s above assertion

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim can be accepted, so it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.