1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 25, 2017, based on the executory exemplification of the notarial deed No. 35, 2015 No. 35 of the notarial deed against Nonparty C, the Defendant executed a seizure of the movable property indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant movable property”) at the Plaintiff’s residence, Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, and Non-dong 102 (hereinafter “instant movable property”).

B. On December 5, 197, the Plaintiff married with C and C, and on August 19, 1997, the Seoul Family Court rendered a final and conclusive judgment that “the Plaintiff and C shall divorce” on August 19, 1997 in the case of divorce, etc., but did not file a report accordingly, and thus the Plaintiff and C are entered in the family relations register while they are married.

C. The resident registration ledger C is registered as a spouse at the Plaintiff’s domicile.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was legally divorced before C and 15 years, and C did not live in the Plaintiff’s residence, and the instant movable property is the property owned by the Plaintiff unrelated to C.

Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case, which is based on the premise that the movable property of this case is owned by C, shall not be permitted.

B. Determination 1) The inherent property owned by one spouse prior to marriage and the property acquired in one’s own name during marriage shall be deemed the unique property (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act). The property whose identity belongs to any of the married couple shall be presumed to be co-ownership by the married couple (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act). Moreover, corporeal movables owned by the debtor and his spouse as co-ownership by the debtor or jointly possessed by the said spouse may be subject to a seizure of corporeal movables pursuant to Article 189 of the Civil Execution Act (Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act). Such provisions of the Civil Act and the Civil Execution Act apply mutatis mutandis to co-owned corporeal movables by a married couple in a de facto marital relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da34273, Nov.