1. The original copy of the conciliation protocol with executory power over C by the Seoul Eastern District Court 2017 Ghana34603.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against C with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2017 Ghana34603, and the conciliation was concluded that “C shall pay KRW 10 million to the Defendant.”

B. Based on the above protocol, on March 28, 2019, the Defendant seized each of the items listed in the separate sheet in the Daegu Suwon-gu D’s house living together with the Defendant on March 28, 2019

(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution of this case should not be permitted since the defendant conducted the compulsory execution of the article owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant asserts that C is in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff since 2014, and each of the items listed in the separate sheet shall be jointly possessed by C and the defendant as co-ownership of C and the defendant, so the compulsory execution of this case shall be allowed.

B. Determination 1) Ccorporeal movables jointly possessed by the debtor and his/her spouse, which are owned by the debtor or jointly possessed by the debtor's spouse, may be seized (Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act). This shall also apply mutatis mutandis to co-owned corporeal movables owned by the married couple in a de facto marital relationship with no only a report of marriage, as they have the substance of a married community (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da34273, Nov. 11, 1997). Furthermore, the proprietary property owned by one of the married couple before marriage and the property acquired in his/her name during the marriage shall be the unique property, and the property whose ownership belongs to anyone of the married couple is unclear shall be presumed to be co-owned by the married couple (Article 830 of the Civil Act). It is acknowledged that the Plaintiff purchased the property from around November 2014 to be in a de facto marital relationship with C, and that the Plaintiff purchased the property more than the entire arguments in the evidence No. 1, 4 and 14.

Therefore, each of the above.