1. The Defendant’s notary public against C is an executory exemplification of No. 124 of the D Deed No. 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 31, 2016, the Defendant seized each movable property listed in the attachment list in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and the first floor based on the authentic copy of the authentic deed stated in the order.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant compulsory execution”). B.

On August 1, 1988, the Plaintiff and C jointly occupied and used each of the said movables as a legal couple who completed a marriage report.

C. Of each movable property listed in the separate attachment list, the No. 4 Kimchi Refriger and the No. 5 laundry period were purchased in the name of the Plaintiff during the marriage life.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Among each movable property listed in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the 4 Kimchi Refriger and 2 of the table for the establishment and use of the 5 laundry period (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the movable property of this case”) is the Plaintiff’s unique property, and the execution of this case is unfair.

Even if it is not so, the plaintiff intended to exercise the preferential purchase right (Article 206 of the Civil Execution Act) and the right to demand payment of spouse (Article 221 of the Civil Execution Act) under the Civil Execution Act, but the defendant did not apply for auction for two years after seizure, and the defendant bears the inconvenience of preserving the goods to be disposed of. Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case constitutes abuse of rights and thus, the compulsory execution of

B. (1) Determination is based on the following facts: (a) One spouse’s own property prior to marriage and one spouse’s own property acquired under one’s own name during marriage shall be the unique property; and (b) one spouse’s own property, the other spouse’s property, the other spouse of which is unclear, shall be presumed to be co-owned by the couple (Article 830(1) and the other spouse’s property (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act). According to the above facts, among the instant movable property, the attachment No. 4 of the attachment No. 1 of the attachment No. 5 of the instant movable property is purchased under

The plaintiff is attached to the movable property of this case.