A. On February 3, 2015, the Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) on the basis of the executory payment order for the loan case No. 2012 tea 1681, Jinju-si D (hereinafter “instant address”) based on the executory payment order for the loan case No. 201, Jinju-si.

B. On August 25, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report to the address in this case, and C filed a move-in report to the address in this case on February 28, 2012, and filed a move-in report to another address on February 6, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 9, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, since it is recognized that the plaintiff purchased the instant corporeal movables in his own name at his own expense from June 2009 to October 2014, it is deemed that the instant corporeal movables are owned by the plaintiff.

3. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the instant corporeal movables are co-ownerships with the Plaintiff and C, since they are de facto marital relations with the Plaintiff and C.

Property acquired by one of the married couple in his/her own revenue and name shall be owned by the sole owner of the property acquired in his/her own revenue and name. However, the property whose identity belongs to anyone of the married couple is presumed to be jointly owned by the married couple (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act). Ccorporeal movables possessed by the debtor and his/her spouse as co-ownership of the debtor and his/her spouse or jointly possessed by the spouse may be seized (Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act).

C From February 2012 to May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff was in the status of moving-in report to the address of the instant case from the time of seizure and execution of the instant corporeal movables. According to the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 10 and No. 2, the sum of the Plaintiff’s account over three times from October 21, 2013 to May 21, 2014.