2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

[A] In this case, the Plaintiff asserts that the above movable property is unfair since it was owned by itself and offered to C to use it free of charge on September 2017.

However, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected for the following reasons.

Article 527-2 of the former Civil Procedure Act provides that " Ccorporeal movables jointly owned by the debtor and his/her spouse may be seized pursuant to Article 527 when the debtor occupies or jointly possessed with his/her spouse," and Article 190 of the former Civil Procedure Act also provides that " Ccorporeal movables jointly possessed by the debtor and his/her spouse, which are owned by the debtor or jointly possessed by the debtor with his/her spouse, may be seized pursuant to Article 189."

As to whether the above provision can be applied not only to a legal marital relationship but also to a couple who is in a de facto marital relationship, the Supreme Court held early that Article 527-2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that corporeal movables belonging to the co-ownership of the debtor and his spouse may be seized pursuant to the provisions of Article 527 of the same Act when the debtor occupies or jointly occupies with his spouse. The above provision also applies to co-owned corporeal movables of a couple in a de facto marital relationship with which only a marriage report is not filed, as it has the substance of a marital community. (See Supreme Court Decision 97Da34273 delivered on November 11, 1997).

In addition, as seen earlier, the provisions and systems of the current Civil Execution Act, which provide the same as those of the former Civil Procedure Act, should be equally applied to the above Supreme Court precedents.

He returned to the instant case, and the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s debtor.