1. The Defendant is an executory exemplification of the U.S. District Court No. 2015 Ghana30427 against Nonparty C.

1. On January 18, 2017, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Ulsan District Court enforcement officer enforced compulsory execution against the Defendant’s executory payment order with respect to the goods listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant goods”) based on the Defendant’s executory payment order with respect to C.

2. The plaintiff asserted that the goods of this case should not be forced execution because they are owned by the plaintiff. The defendant asserted that the goods of this case in de facto marital relations between the plaintiff and C are unique property of C or marital property.

3. The proprietary property owned by one of the determined couple prior to marriage, and the property acquired in his/her name during the marriage shall be the special property (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act), and the property whose name belongs to any of the married couple, shall be presumed to be jointly owned by the married couple

(Article 830(2) of the Civil Act also provides that corporeal movables under a co-ownership of the debtor and his/her spouse, which are possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed with his/her spouse, may be seized and seized pursuant to Article 189 of the Civil Execution Act.

(1) Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act provides, “The provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Execution Act shall also apply mutatis mutandis to co-owned corporeal movables of a couple having a de facto marital relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da34273, Nov. 11, 1997). In this case, according to the evidence and the purport of oral argument submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and C have a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff, and the fact that the purchase price was paid by transferring the instant articles to the Plaintiff’s account while preparing for marriage, is recognized.

According to the above facts, the article of this case is presumed to be the plaintiff's unique property.

Therefore, compulsory execution is not allowed for the instant article.

4. Conclusion of the Plaintiff’s claim