A. On November 29, 2018, the Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed a marriage report. On November 29, 2018, the Defendant rendered a seizure execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) against each of the corporeal movables listed in the [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) in the Seoul Northern-gu D apartment and E, the domicile of the Plaintiff and C, on the original copy of the judgment No. 2005Gaso25462 of the Gwangju Northern District Court Decision No. 2005Da25462, supra.

B. Due to C’s obligations, the Plaintiff and C had seized and sold corporeal movables possessed by the Plaintiff and C through G of this Court and H, and the Plaintiff and C moved to the said residence on August 29, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff was located in C and the above residence with the above book-keeping. The instant corporeal movables are the unique property acquired by the Plaintiff in his name, and do not occupy the instant corporeal movables jointly with C. Therefore, compulsory execution of the instant case may not be permitted.

B. Determination 1) Determination 1) The proprietary property owned by one side of the married couple prior to marriage and the property acquired in one’s own name during the marriage are the unique property (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act). Meanwhile, the property whose identity belongs to one side of the married couple is presumed to be co-ownership by the married couple (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act). Any corporeal movables possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed by the spouse as co-ownership of the debtor and his/her spouse may be seized (Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act). Such presumption of public property of the married couple and seizure of corporeal movables jointly owned by the married couple are the premise that the marital relationship is maintained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da201233, Jul. 11, 2013).