1. On March 27, 2019, the Defendant based on an executory payment order with the Gwangju District Court 2019 tea 2619 against F.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is F’s wife, and Plaintiff B is F’s child.

B. On March 27, 2019, the Defendant delegated the execution of seizure to enforcement officers based on the original copy of the payment order indicated in paragraph (1) of the F’s order, and seized each movable in the attached list located in F’s residence.

(Seoul Eastern District Court G). [Evidence] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Paragraph 3 of the attached list of the judgment on the plaintiff B's claim is the ownership of the plaintiff B, and there is no dispute between the parties. It is reasonable to deny the part on the above movable owned by a person who is not F, the execution obligor, during the execution of the above seizure.

3. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim

A. The gist of Plaintiff A’s assertion is not F’s ownership, but the movable property of this case is the Plaintiff’s unique property purchased by Plaintiff A with his own money, and thus, the execution of the above seizure should be denied.

B. Whether the property belongs to one of the married couple is presumed to be jointly owned by the couple (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act). The movable of this case is presumed to have been acquired during the marriage between the plaintiff A and F, who is the married couple, and since the plaintiff A and F occupy together and use the property at their place of residence, it shall be presumed to be jointly owned by the plaintiff A and F.

However, it is difficult to readily conclude that Plaintiff A purchased the instant movable property solely by means of the evidence Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 11 through 16 with the import or assets of the principal. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the said presumption is reversed. Moreover, it is reasonable to view that the instant movable property falls under the co-ownership of the couple even if it was purchased by either spouse’s import or assets even if it was purchased by either spouse’s import or assets.

Ultimately, Plaintiff A’s assertion that the instant movable property is the unique property of Plaintiff A is without merit.

4. Accordingly, the plaintiff B's claim is reasonable.