1. The defendant's order of payment with executory power in the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch 2014J 12209.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2, 2014, the Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet C and 101 attached hereto (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) based on the executory payment order in the Suwon District Court Decision 2014Hu12209 Decided December 2, 2014, based on the executory payment order for the transfer money case.

B. At the time of the above seizure, the enforcement officer notified that B will be voluntarily repaid at the execution place, but failed to comply with this and enforced the seizure execution.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence No. 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Examining the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 as to the cause of the claim in addition to the whole purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff purchased a computer listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table No. 5 on or around August 21, 2013, and the Plaintiff entered into a monthly lease contract with D on or around January 27, 2009 with respect to the place of execution of the instant case, and had children resided together with E and son F until now; the instant corporeal movables are used in daily life and household appliances and household appliances; according to the above facts acknowledged, it is reasonable to deem the instant corporeal movables as owned by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is reasonable.

3. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, since the defendant is in a de facto marital relationship between the plaintiff and B, it can be viewed that the corporeal movables in this case are jointly possessed by the plaintiff and B. In such a case, Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act is applied by analogy and the compulsory execution in this case is lawful.

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including each number), the fact that Eul registered his/her resident registration in the instant execution site by December 10, 2014, and that he/she indicated his/her "spouse" as "spouse" after being served on behalf of the plaintiff on the mail served by the plaintiff to Eul may be recognized. However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, and it is otherwise recognized.