1. The original of the payment order with executory power in the Seoul Central District Court 2016 tea 22496 against B.

1. The facts based on which the Defendant: (a) executed a seizure of corporeal movables under the [Attachment] List No. 2017No. 201886, Gwangju Seo-gu, Seo-gu, and 313 Dong 904 by designating the executory payment order exemplification of the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2016 against B as the executory title of the Seoul Central District Court case No. 201, the Defendant did not conflict between the parties; or (b) is recognized as being based on

2. Although one spouse’s property acquired in his/her name during the marriage is presumed to be the special property of the nominal owner, the presumption of special property shall be reversed and the presumption of special property shall be deemed to be owned by the other party or to be co-ownership by both parties, when the other party or both parties have proved to have acquired the property at the cost of the property.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da25695 Decided October 12, 1995). In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11, the plaintiff purchased each movable property listed in the separate sheet on his/her own account using his/her credit card, etc., and unlike others, Eul had engaged in economic activities since 2014 and brought about monthly pay to the plaintiff.

there is no evidence to acknowledge that B made payment for the purchase of each movable set forth in the separate sheet.

Therefore, each movable mentioned in the attached list is the plaintiff's unique property, and the above compulsory execution is illegal because it is against the property owned by a person who is not the debtor, so compulsory execution against it should not be allowed.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.