1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On March 31, 2020, this Court

Basic Facts

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant entrusted the execution of seizure to the execution officer on the basis of the executory payment order exemplification of the transfer money case against Eul, the plaintiff's spouse, and entrusted the execution officer on March 19, 2020, based on the executory payment order exemplification of the transfer money case, which is the plaintiff's spouse, and on March 19, 2020, each of the movables listed in the attachment list (hereinafter "the movables of this case").

Plaintiff’s assertion

Since the instant movable is not owned D, but unique property purchased by the Plaintiff with his own money, the attachment execution should not be permitted.

Judgment

Article 830(1) of the Civil Act provides that the property acquired in one’s own name and the property acquired in one’s own name before marriage shall be the unique property (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act); Article 830(2) provides that the property of the married couple shall be presumed to be the co-ownership of the married couple (Article 830(2)); Article 190 of the Civil Act provides that corporeal movables possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed by the spouse as co-ownership of the debtor and his spouse may be seized (Article 190 of the Civil Act). Since the movable property of this case is acquired in the marriage between the plaintiff and D, and the plaintiff and D are occupied and used together at their place of residence, it shall be presumed to be co-ownership with the plaintiff. Since it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff purchased the movable property of this case only by the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, such as evidence No. 3, cannot be concluded to be reversed; it is reasonable to deem that the movable property of this case belongs to co-ownership of the married

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the movable property of this case is the plaintiff's unique property is without merit.

The conclusion is.