1. On January 1, 2017, the Defendant based on the executory exemplification of the payment order under the Daejeon District Court 2014 tea 181.

1. The Defendant, on January 25, 2017, executed a seizure of movables listed in the attached list, which were kept in a building located in the domicile of the Plaintiff and B, based on the executory exemplification of the payment order stated in paragraph (1) of the Disposition B against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff, as the wife of B, purchased the articles listed in the [Attachment No. 3] from the Bae shop on February 9, 2015, and settled the purchase price by credit card from the [Attachment No. 1] on February 10, 2015, and from C on February 10, 2015.

【Grounds for Recognition】 The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the movables listed in the [Attachment 1 and 3] list of judgment, the above movables are presumed to be the plaintiff's unique property purchased by the plaintiff in his/her own name, and compulsory execution against this is an infringement on the plaintiff's ownership, and thus, it cannot

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the movable property listed in [Attachment 2 and 4] is owned by the Plaintiff, compulsory execution against it is not possible. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff acquired it under his own name, which is provided in the daily life of all family members, such as electronic sirens and computers, and the property whose husband and wife belongs to is presumed to be co-ownership by the husband and wife (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act). Thus, it is presumed that the Plaintiff and B acquired to engage in a marital life and is presumed to be co-ownership with

Since this can be seized pursuant to Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

The plaintiff's claim shall be partially accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and it is so decided as per Disposition.