2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On February 6, 2015, C completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on January 5, 2015.

B. On April 29, 2016, B, who is the husband of the Plaintiff, was sentenced to a judgment of KRW 207,078 and KRW 442 on the charge of taking property in breach of trust, violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, etc., in the court of this case.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by B and the prosecutor, who was sentenced to the Seoul High Court from September 30, 2016 to the 2016No1289, and the appeal filed by B, but the appeal was filed by the Supreme Court from December 27, 2016 to the 2016Do16940, which became final and conclusive.

C. Meanwhile, on December 10, 2015, the instant court determined the amount of the preservation for the levying of penalties as KRW 130,000 to preserve the execution of the judgment of the levying of penalties against B, and decided to preserve the levying of penalties against the instant real estate. On December 15, 2015, on December 15, 2015, issued a decision to rectify the amount of the preservation for the levying of penalties as KRW 207,078,442 (the sum of the decision of the preservation for the levying of penalties and the decision of the correction).

The registration of provisional seizure was completed on December 18, 2015 with respect to the real estate of this case by the execution based on the decision of the collection preservation of the instant case, and on February 27, 2017, the registration of provisional seizure was completed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the real estate of this case was purchased with the Plaintiff’s funds, and even if the real estate was purchased with the Plaintiff’s funds, B donated the acquisition funds to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case is not permitted since it was conducted on the real estate owned by the plaintiff as a third party.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant real estate is merely a real estate acquired by B with the funds owned by it and entrusted only the registration title to the Plaintiff, and thus constitutes the property owned by B.

Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case is lawful.

3. Determination.