1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court 2018 Chicago10275, August 2018

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 2, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C to purchase the instant real estate in KRW 782,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 6, 2004.

B. On February 10, 2017, the Plaintiff’s husband B was indicted of breach of trust and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment, a fine of 1,150,000,000 won, and a surcharge of 266,413,821 won at the Busan District Court.

[The Busan District Court 2016Gohap12, 219 (combined), hereinafter referred to as "relevant criminal cases"). (c)

In order to collect criminal proceeds from B, a prosecutor applied for an order of preservation for collection of the value of the instant real estate as KRW 266,413,821 in a related criminal case (Seoul District Court 2016Hu297). On February 18, 2016, the above court issued an order of preservation for collection with the content that the instant real estate was provisionally seized and all disposal of the real estate was prohibited.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case’s real estate owned by the Plaintiff rather than B, compulsory execution based on the above collection preservation order should be denied.

3. Determination

A. The phrase “property of the defendant,” which may prohibit disposal by issuing an order of preservation for collection under Article 52 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, Etc., which is applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 8 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Confiscation and Restoration of Corruption in Narcotics, Etc., refers to the property which actually reverts to the defendant regardless of whose name the property belongs to. In order to consider that certain property actually reverts to the defendant, determination should be made by comprehensively taking into

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94823, Mar. 10, 2011). Meanwhile, either spouse’s proprietary property prior to marriage and property acquired in one’s own name during marriage is its unique property.