A. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the judgment of Suwon District Court No. 2012Gais90305 case No. 201, Apr. 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of Suwon District Court No. 2012, Apr. 3, 2015, each corporeal movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 316, Dong

B. The enforcement officer notified the Plaintiff, who is the wife B at the execution place at the time of the above seizure, to accept or voluntarily repay the Plaintiff at the execution place, but failed to comply therewith and enforced the seizure. (c) On June 25, 2014, immediately after the Plaintiff gave birth to his/her child on June 15, 2014, the Plaintiff reported a marriage with B on June 25, 2014. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the instant corporeal movables were purchased by the Plaintiff, compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff based on the Defendant’s executive title against B is unreasonable.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the corporeal movables in this case are common properties of both spouses, and that the defendant can seize them.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, the Plaintiff purchased Samsung Television No. 1, 5 from among the instant corporeal movables, and Samsung Kimchi C& 5 from September 30, 2013, and purchased the instant corporeal movables No. 1, 2, 4, and 5 from September 27, 2013. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant corporeal movables were owned by the Plaintiff.

However, with respect to the remaining corporeal movables, Article 830(2) of the Civil Code presumed that the property whose belongs to anyone of the married couple is not clear shall be jointly owned by the married couple, and the plaintiff purchased it.

There is no evidence to support this point, and since the above corporeal movables are the home appliances used for the common life of the married couple, it is insufficient to conclude that they are the plaintiff's unique property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is above.