1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 29, 1982, the Plaintiff was married with C on May 13, 1985, but the agreement was married with C on June 16, 1986, but the agreement was reached on July 31, 2003.

Since the last five years, the Plaintiff had been living together in South-gu E and Na-dong 501 (hereinafter “instant housing”) with the above C for the last five years.

B. On November 17, 2015, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant housing, filed a lawsuit claiming the name of the building at the court No. 2015Da305366, Nov. 17, 2015 against the Plaintiff and C who occupied the instant housing, and seized the instant home appliances and the instant goods, a sports organization, in accordance with the title of enforcement of the claim against C on February 26, 2016, pursuant to the title of enforcement of the claim against C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the articles of this case should be purchased with the plaintiff's funds and owned individually by the plaintiff, and compulsory execution stated in the purport of this case should not be allowed.

In regard to this, the plaintiff and C maintained a marital relationship merely with the other party, and they were living together at the time of compulsory execution on the instant goods. The defendant asserts that the instant goods are co-owned property of the plaintiff and C, and that compulsory execution can be conducted with the title of execution against C.

B. An ambiguous property is presumed to be jointly owned by the husband and wife (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act). Ccorporeal movables owned by the debtor or jointly possessed by the debtor and his/her spouse, as co-ownership of the debtor and his/her 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 couple in a de facto marital relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da34273, Nov. 11, 1997). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the foregoing recognition is based on the entirety of pleadings.