1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is that of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following matters, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant goods are co-owned property of the Plaintiff and C couple because they were created for common life of both the Plaintiff and C. The facts that the instant goods are mixed-owned property created by the Plaintiff before the Plaintiff and C forming a de facto marital relationship are no dispute between the parties. It is reasonable to view the instant goods as the Plaintiff’s unique property unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, which is a mixed-owned property created by the Plaintiff prior to marriage (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act). It is reasonable to deem the instant goods as the Plaintiff’s unique property, and even if the Plaintiff and C have used the instant goods together for their common life, such circumstance alone is insufficient to deem the instant goods as co-owned property of the Plaintiff and C. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. However, since it is clear that "the executory payment order exemplification" in Article 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is a clerical error of "the executory exemplification of the judgment", the decision to correct it ex officio is delivered with the decision