beta
Text
1. On the basis of the authentic copy of notarial deeds with executory power of No. 1099, Sept. 1, 2017, 2017 by the Defendant’s office D office of notary public against C.
Reasons
1. The Defendant: (a) based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) with the executory power of No. 1099, No. 1099 against C, the Defendant entrusted the enforcement officer of the Seoul Eastern District Court’s execution of seizure of movables owned by C; and (b) on September 6, 2017, the enforcement officer E entrusted by the Defendant and the Plaintiff and C jointly resided, seized each movable property listed in the attached list in the Seoul Gwangjin-gu F and 602.
Attached Form
Of each movable in the list, No. 3 is purchased by C and owned by C, and the remaining movable (hereinafter “each movable of this case”) is purchased by the Plaintiff and owned by the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, compulsory execution against each of the movables of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff on September 6, 2017, based on the original copy of the notarial deed of this case against the defendant C, shall not be permitted as compulsory execution against articles not owned by the debtor.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff and C are in a de facto marital relationship while living together, and all of the movables listed in the separate sheet, including each of the movables of this case, are owned by two persons as goods necessary for living together, and compulsory execution based on the original copy of the notarial deed of this case should be allowed. However, as alleged by the defendant, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff and C were in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, and that each of the movables of this case constitutes jointly owned property for the common life of the plaintiff
3. The plaintiff's request for the conclusion is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.