1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Based on the executory exemplification of the notarial deeds No. 405, 2016, No. 405, and notary public, No. 131, 2017, the fact that the Defendant executed the attachment of corporeal movables listed in the attached list on January 10, 2019 is no dispute between the parties.

The Plaintiff asserts that the said corporeal movables were owned by the Plaintiff, not C, and sought a non-permission of compulsory execution against it on the ground that the said corporeal movables were in progress by consultation with C at the time of the execution of the above seizure.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion.

(A) The plaintiff is not present at the date of pleading in this case. On the other hand, the property acquired in one side of the married couple's own name and the property acquired in one side of the married couple's own name shall be deemed to be the property unique to the other side (Article 830 (1) of the Civil Act). The property whose belongs to

(Article 830(2) of the Civil Act. Therefore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if it is proved that the Plaintiff had been able to file a separate suit with C at the time of seizure, such circumstance alone alone does not necessarily mean that the said corporeal movables are owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.