beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s order for payment with executory power in the case of Goyang-gu District Court 201 tea 3061, Goyang-dong 201.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff and the non-party C are married couple.
B. On October 20, 2016, based on the executory payment order of the instant case No. 3061, the Defendant enforced enforcement against C on October 20, 2016, on the basis of the executory payment order of Franchi District Court Decision 201Da3061 (hereinafter “instant goods”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the goods of this case are owned by the plaintiff, so compulsory execution against the above goods must be dismissed.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the goods of this case except shock waves are purchased with money invested by the defendant in C, or they fall under the common property of the plaintiff and the debtor C, and compulsory execution is lawful.
3. Determination
A. Pursuant to Article 830 of the Civil Act, the property acquired by one of the married couple in his/her own name and the property acquired in his/her own name during marriage shall be presumed to be his/her own property
B. When comprehensively considering the purport of the entire arguments in the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff purchased the goods of this case in the name of the plaintiff or his mother or made a siren, and paid the price by credit card in the name of the plaintiff, or by transferring them from the plaintiff's account. According to the above facts of recognition, the goods of this case are presumed to be the plaintiff's unique property purchased by the plaintiff. The mere fact that the plaintiff and the plaintiff are married couple is insufficient to recognize each of the above goods as public property, and there is no other evidence to support the defendant's assertion that C purchased the above goods with the money received by the defendant.
C. Therefore, compulsory execution against the instant goods should not be permitted.
4. The claim of this case is justified.