beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 25, 2014, based on the executory judgment of Seoul Southern District Court 2014Gaso390749, the Defendant seized each movable property listed in the attached list in the attached list in Ansan-gu D and B-01 (hereinafter “the location of the instant case”) during the Ansan-si period of August 25, 2014 (hereinafter “the location of the instant case”).
B. C is the father of Plaintiff A, who is the spouse of Plaintiff B, completed the resident registration at the location of the instant case, and resided with the Plaintiffs, and transferred on December 20, 2013 to Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, but was living at the location of the instant case at the time of seizure of each movable property indicated in the separate sheet.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. From among each movable set forth in the separate sheet of the plaintiffs' arguments, TV (1), shock (4), and sports organization (6) are owned by the plaintiff A, and all remaining movable properties are owned by the plaintiff B, compulsory execution against each of the above movable properties should be denied on August 25, 2014.
B. Determination 1) The above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the above three movables are owned by the plaintiff A, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the remaining movables are owned by the plaintiff A, since TV (1), shock (4), sports equipment (6), and part of Gap evidence (6), which are the ownership of the plaintiff A, are different from the time of purchase of the plaintiff A, the circumstances, and there is no evidence as to the source of the purchase fund. 2) The property acquired by the plaintiff in his name during the marriage shall be deemed to be the sole ownership of the property acquired by the plaintiff's own property. However, it is presumed that the property which belongs to anyone of the couple's own property is owned by the plaintiff's husband and wife, and that there is no evidence as to the point of view that there is no evidence as to the timing of purchase of the plaintiff A, the circumstances, and the source of purchase fund.