(hereinafter collectively, the fact that a seizure execution (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) was conducted on the instant corporeal movables is without dispute between the parties, and according to the above fact of recognition, it can be confirmed that the instant corporeal movables are things owned by the Plaintiff in the Plaintiff’s residence.

The defendant asserts that B is in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, and that B's corporeal movables are jointly occupied by the plaintiff who is a de facto marital spouse and can be seized pursuant to Articles 190 and 189 of the Civil Execution Act.

At the time of the enforcement of this case, B was a person living together with the plaintiff on his resident registration, and at the time of the enforcement of this case, B was locked in the plaintiff's house, and was in his/her clothes, and was in his/her photo marked together with the plaintiff. The plaintiff's mother was not in dispute between the parties, and the plaintiff's mother was in his/her own house, and even if B remains in his/her own house, the fact that B remains in his/her own house is the plaintiff. However, the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to conclude that the plaintiff is a de facto spouse in his/her own de facto marriage, and there is no other evidence

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the corporeal movables of this case are not owned by the debtor, and thus, they shall not be permitted. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.