1. The Defendant rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation on July 22, 2016, as the Busan District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court, 2016Kadan15084.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 1993, the Plaintiff started the business of manufacturing machinery, etc. under the trade name “D,” and completed the business registration. The Plaintiff’s husband B, on September 5, 2010, completed the business registration as having started the business of manufacturing machinery, etc. under the trade name “E,” and each of the above businesses’ businesses’ business places are located within 1,685 square meters of land for factory in Kimpo-si owned by B.

B. On August 22, 2017, the Defendant received an execution clause of succession from G in lieu of the conciliation indicated in B’s order from G, and had the said support execution officer seize each of the movables indicated in the above D’s order (hereinafter “each of the instant movables”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2-1, 3-1, 4, 1-1, 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the plaintiff's assertion that each of the instant movables is owned by the plaintiff, the defendant asserts that since D also borrowed and operated the name of the plaintiff from the plaintiff, each of the said movables is owned by B.

B. According to the above facts, since each of the instant movables is deemed to be owned by the Plaintiff and B, who is a married couple, and it is not clear who is owned by the Plaintiff and B, it is presumed to be jointly owned by the Plaintiff and B pursuant to Article 830(2) of the Civil Act. The evidence and each of the instant movables, which the Defendant submitted and used at the time of seizure, were not alleged to be owned by the Plaintiff, are insufficient to recognize that B independently owned each of the instant movables (the same is also applicable in view of the data submitted by the Defendant after the closing of argument

The defendant's above assertion is without merit. Therefore, it is unreasonable to seize all of the above movables as corporeal movables without using the method of seizing B's share rights based on the title of execution against B pursuant to Article 251 of the Civil Execution Act, based on the method of executing other property rights pursuant to Article 251 of the Civil Execution Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Da2023, Feb. 24, 1981; 80Da2023, Feb. 24, 1981