1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on October 1, 2013.

B. On June 9, 2015, Busan District Court Dong Branch D executed a seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “execution of this case”) with respect to each of the instant movable property, which is a household tool located inside the 102 Dong Dong-dong 1103, the Busan District Court E, Busan District Court E, 102 Dong-dong 103, pursuant to the Defendant’s application for compulsory execution based on the Defendant’s executive title against C.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry in Gap 1, 2, and 12 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Since each of the instant movable properties, except for one unit in the table Nos. 12 of the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 12, all of the instant movable assets purchased by the Plaintiff before marriage with C, compulsory execution against each of the instant movable properties shall be denied.

3. Determination

(a) The proprietary property owned by one side of the married couple under the related Acts and subordinate statutes and the property acquired in the name of one side of the married couple shall be the peculiar property (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act); and the property the identity of which belongs to anyone of the married couple is unclear shall be presumed

(Article 830, Section 2 of the Civil Act). (b)

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 11, and 13 as to each of the movables of this case, according to the whole purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 9, 10, and 11 as to each of the movables of this case, the plaintiff purchased, at his own credit card or his own expense, the movables of this case Nos. 1, 8, 11, and 13 among the movables of this case. Accordingly, each of the aforementioned movables constitutes the plaintiff's unique property pursuant to Article 830 (1) of the Civil Act, and the execution of this case shall be rejected. 2) As to this, the defendant purchased each of the above movables of this case in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff from around 2010 to the point of time, each of the above movables is asserted as co-ownership with the plaintiff and C.

One side of the couple's property has been acquired in the name of his own property before marriage and during marriage.