1. On November 6, 2018, based on the executory exemplification of this court’s 2017da39029 case against the Defendant C, the original of the judgment with executory power over the Defendant C.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: The Plaintiff is the wife of C, the Defendant’s debtor, and the Plaintiff leased an apartment on June 13, 2017, where each movable property listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 is located, and the said movable property is owned by the Plaintiff. The said movable property is owned by the Plaintiff, and it is merely a temporary residence while managing the said movable property at the Plaintiff’s home because it is difficult

2. Determination: First of partial recognition, according to the video of the evidence No. 2, C’s wife D asserted that it cannot be executed because all of the movables subject to seizure are owned by it at the time of seizure execution, and there is no means to say that they are owned by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s assertion against this is difficult to accept.

The plaintiff argued to the effect that D was fluently fluent with the first time of the execution of seizure, and fluently fluently fluently, but according to Gap evidence No. 1, prior to the execution of the seizure of this case, the execution of seizure on the same goods at the same place as this court No. 2018No. 2187 is recognized. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult for the plaintiff to believe that the above argument of the plaintiff is just

The above assertion is not accepted [this Court Decision 2018Da31428 delivered on March 14, 2019 in this Court Decision 2018Da31428 delivered on the enforcement of the seizure of movable property by the third party of this Court does not change because the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered on March 14, 2019. Since the parties to the lawsuit are different, the conclusion of the above case does not affect this case in this case] Accordingly, the remaining movable property, other than those listed in the table 1 Nos. 1, 4, and 5 of the attached Table 1 among the objects subject to the seizure, shall be considered as the objects of both C and D couple residing at the execution site.

Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act provides that " Ccorporeal movables under the co-ownership of the debtor and his/her spouse, which are possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed by the debtor with his/her spouse, may be seized pursuant to Article 189."

The Civil Code;