The plaintiff is C's spouse.

On September 18, 2020, the Defendant, based on the executory order of the Seoul Central District Court No. 2020, 106611, delegated the seizure of tangible properties to the enforcement officer of the Jung-gu District Court (D). On September 18, 2020, the enforcement officer appointed 11 movable properties, including each movable property listed in the separate sheet, in E and F, the Plaintiff and C’s residence.

[The grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and a claim for the purport of the entire pleadings shall be the property owned by one side of the married couple and the property acquired in one’s own name during the marriage before the marriage (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act). The property whose belongs to the married couple is presumed to be jointly owned by the married couple (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act). According to the health class, Gap evidence No. 2 and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, according to the whole purport of the arguments, the plaintiff continued to have engaged in income while in G from January 8, 2007, and each movable listed in the attached list shall be deemed to have been purchased by the plaintiff either by a credit card in the name of the principal or by online settlement. Thus, it is reasonable to view each of the above movable property as the plaintiff’s unique property.

Therefore, the defendant's enforcement against each movable mentioned in the attached list should not be permitted.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.