1. The Defendant’s original copy of the judgment with executory power in the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015Gahap24458 against B.

1. In full view of the purport of the evidence evidence No. 1 as a whole, the Plaintiff is the husband and wife B. On November 30, 2017, the court below's senior support execution officer C against the Defendant's Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015Gahap24458, Nov. 30, 2017, the court below held that the attachment of corporeal movables against each movable mentioned in the attached list No. 1 and No. 2012, No. 2012, No. 1055, and the attached list No. 1 and No. 2 of the attached Table No. 2012.

2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the movable property listed in the Attachment List No. 1 is recognized as purchased by the Plaintiff around September 28, 2017, and the movable property listed in the Attached Attachment List No. 2 around October 19, 2017, respectively.

Property of which identity belongs to one of the married couple is presumed to be co-owned by the married couple (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act); however, the property acquired by one of the married couple in his/her name during marriage shall be its unique property (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act). In light of the above legal principles, each movable mentioned in the attached list 1 and 2 shall be the property acquired by the plaintiff in his/her name during marriage and shall be the plaintiff's unique property.

Therefore, seizure execution for each movable in the attached list 1 and 2 should not be permitted because it infringes on the plaintiff's ownership.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.