1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Suwon District Court 201Da33541 case, the Defendant rendered a seizure of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movables”) on August 1, 2019; and (b) the Plaintiff and C, a couple who reported a marriage around 2016, jointly occupied the instant movables at the time of the execution of the seizure, may not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1.

2. The plaintiff asserted that the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff and filed a motion for non-performance of compulsory execution against it.

3. The property owned by one side of the judgment and the property acquired in one’s name before marriage, and the property acquired in one’s own name during marriage, shall be the special property, and the property whose identity belongs to anyone of the married couple shall be presumed to be jointly owned by the married couple (see Article 830 of the Civil Act). Ccorporeal movables under the joint ownership of the debtor and his spouse, which are possessed by

(See Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act). In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the instant movable cannot be seized as it constitutes the Plaintiff’s unique property.

(On the other hand, even if it is recognized that a lease was made in the name of the plaintiff or a purchase was made in installments with the reservation of ownership, the ownership of the movable property is attributed to the lessor or the seller, and it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.