1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 12, 2019, the Defendant, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the claim for the purchase price of goods (No. 2017da5208174, Nov. 26, 2018, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a seizure execution (Dong Branch Branch of Busan District Court) with respect to nine movables, including movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant cooling house”) in the Busan Southern-gu E ApartmentF on February 12, 2019.

B. The Plaintiff and D are married couple, and they are living together with their children in the above E Apartment F.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the cooling house in this case is purchased as the plaintiff's wage income and is the plaintiff's unique property, so the defendant's execution of seizure should not be allowed.

The proprietary property owned by one of the married couple prior to marriage, and the property acquired in his/her own name during the marriage shall be the peculiar property (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act); the property whose marital identity belongs to anyone of the married couple shall be presumed to be jointly owned by the

(Article 830(2) of the Civil Act also provides that corporeal movables under a co-ownership of the debtor and his/her spouse, which are possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed with his/her spouse, may be seized and seized pursuant to Article 189 of the Civil Execution Act.

(Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act). In general, in light of the fact that the ownership relationship of corporeal movables, such as real estate or automobiles, is not publicly announced by a registration or record, and that the possessor is presumed to legally hold the right of possession over the possessed objects (Article 200 of the Civil Act), the instant coolant, which the Plaintiff and D jointly occupy as their husband and wife, is presumed to be the public property of the Plaintiff and D.

According to the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including the number of paper numbers), it can be recognized that the plaintiff purchased the cooling house in this case at the expense of the plaintiff.