1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In the Seoul High Court case No. 2011Na11223, the conciliation was concluded between the Defendant and B, including “B shall pay KRW 90 million to the Defendant.”

B. On July 18, 2017, the Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet based on the executory exemplification of the instant conciliation protocol.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a de facto spouse living with B from the beginning of February 2003, and each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet are all purchased and owned by the Plaintiff. Thus, the execution of seizure against each of the above corporeal movables by the Defendant based on the original copy of the instant protocol of mediation shall be dismissed.

B. Determination 1) The inherent property owned by one spouse prior to marriage and the property acquired in one’s own name during the marriage shall be deemed to be the unique property (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act). The property whose identity belongs to either spouse is unclear shall be presumed to be the co-ownership of the married couple (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act). Moreover, corporeal movables occupied by the debtor or jointly possessed by the spouse as co-ownership of the debtor and his spouse may be subject to a seizure of corporeal movables pursuant to Article 189 of the Civil Execution Act (Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act). Such provisions of the Civil Act and the Civil Execution Act apply mutatis mutandis to co-owned corporeal movables owned by the married couple in a de facto marital relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da34273, Nov. 11, 1997). Unless there is no proof as to whether they belong to one of the debtor and anyone, which is presumed to belong to co-owned property.