2. With respect to the case for which this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution of 2014Kaman6678, November 2014

A. On October 22, 2014, the Defendant seized corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet on the original copy of the payment order (Seoul Central District Court 2014Hu195349) against B on October 22, 2014.

(2014No. 5874). (b)

B B between the Plaintiff and C (the wife of the Plaintiff), a loan for consumption of money was made on December 26, 2013 between the Plaintiff and C (the Plaintiff’s wife), which provides C with movable property owned by means of transfer as security to the Plaintiff on December 26, 2013, and on December 26, 2016, with movable property owned by the Plaintiff as security for transfer.

C. C In the event that the Plaintiff on September 2, 2014 fails to perform the obligation of KRW 10 million as loans on December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff did not immediately object to compulsory execution, and the Plaintiff did not object to secure the performance of the obligation.

possession of the movable property under subsection (1) shall be transferred to the Plaintiff by way of possession amendment.

“Preparation of a notarial deed” has been made

(No. 158), No. 2014, No. 158, a notary public, is a part of the list of transferred property attached to a notarial deed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant, a third party, as a mortgagee, may claim ownership of the attached property as a mortgagee, because he/she received attached property from C as a collateral for transfer.

B. The movables indicated in the separate sheet is presumed to be co-ownership of B and C, the husband and wife, as a household tool (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act), and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the said movables are property unique to C.

Therefore, the transfer contract between the plaintiff and C is effective only for the share of C, and there is no effect of transfer for security for the share of B among the attached movables provided by C as the transfer for security to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, in the case where the debtor occupies the corporeal movables jointly owned by the couple or the joint possession by the married couple, seizure is possible only by the execution title against one of the married couple (Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act) and attached Form D.