1. The Defendant’s executory order against Nonparty B in Seoul Southern District Court 2016 tea17546 is the executory order of Nonparty B.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the husband of B.

B. On June 23, 2016, based on the executory payment order in the Seoul Southern District Court 2016 tea17546 case, the Defendant enforced against B the articles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant articles”) on June 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion and B are in marital relations, but since the articles of this case are owned by the plaintiff, compulsory execution against the above articles should be denied.

B. Determination 1) Pursuant to Article 830 of the Civil Act, the presumption that the property acquired in one’s own name and the property acquired in one’s own name and in one’s marriage before marriage is presumed to be his/her unique property, and the acquisition of the property during marriage did not constitute grounds to reverse the presumption (see Supreme Court Order 2006S3, 2006S4, August 28, 2007) solely on the basis that there was cooperation between the other party or there was mutual assistance in marriage (see Supreme Court Order 2006S3, 2006S4, 206) and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are considered as a whole as follows: ① on March 4, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant goods under one’s own name among the instant goods, and ② on February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant goods under one’s own name, and the Plaintiff purchased the goods under one’s preferential auction prior to the sale.

3. Therefore, compulsory execution against the instant goods should not be permitted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.