beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. This Court rendered June 3, 2016 with respect to cases of suspension of compulsory execution by this Court 2016 Chicago199.
Reasons
1. Basic facts are based on the executory exemplification of the payment order issued by the Suwon District Court of Suwon-si, 2015j1908, the defendant, on May 12, 2016, based on the fact that on May 12, 2016, on the basis of the executory exemplification of the payment order issued by the Suwon-si, the Suwon District Court of Korea, 2015j1908, the defendant enforced the compulsory execution (hereinafter "instant compulsory execution") on each of the goods listed in the attached attachment list (hereinafter "each of the instant apartment") in the attached attachment list (hereinafter "the instant apartment"), which the plaintiff resides in, or if there is no dispute between the parties,
2. The plaintiff's claimant C merely visited the apartment of this case, and the articles of this case are not owned by C, but owned by C.
Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case should not be permitted.
3. In principle, in a married couple’s communal living, the property acquired by one of the married couple in his/her own revenue and name shall be deemed to be the sole ownership of the property acquired by one of the married couple’s own revenue and name. However, the property whose title belongs to anyone of the married couple is presumed to be the joint ownership of the married couple. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act, corporeal movables jointly possessed by the debtor and his/her spouse, or jointly possessed by the spouse may be seized
In addition, the above provision shall also apply mutatis mutandis to co-owned corporeal movables owned by a couple in a de facto marital relationship that has the substance of a marital community and does not only file a report of marriage (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da34273, Nov. 11, 1997). Meanwhile, de facto marital relationship refers to a co-ownership relationship between men and women, which is not recognized as a legal couple, because it has the intention of marriage between the parties and has the substance of a marital life that can be recognized as a marital life in terms of family order in an objective sense of social order.
Therefore, it is true.