1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

2. 8/10 of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be the Plaintiff.

1. The scope of a party member’s trial at the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought in the attached list 1 and 2 the refusal of compulsory execution against each of the instant corporeal movables and the instant corporeal movables. The first instance court accepted the motion of refusal of compulsory execution against each of the instant corporeal movables, and dismissed the motion of refusal of compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables.

In this regard, only the plaintiff appealed against the claim for non-performance of compulsory execution against the corporeal movables of this case, and then the appeal was filed, and it was changed in exchange for the claim for damages due to the illegal act in the trial.

Therefore, since only the above part of the damages claim is subject to the judgment of the party members, it shall be judged only on this part.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Defendant applied for compulsory execution of the instant corporeal movables based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Gadan9232, and the instant corporeal movables were seized; and (b) the ownership

However, the corporeal movables of this case are not owned by C, but owned by the plaintiff's unique property. Since the defendant suffered loss of ownership of the corporeal movables of this case due to the defendant's compulsory execution, the defendant is obligated to pay the money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as damages compensation.

3. We examine whether the defendant's application for a compulsory execution against the corporeal movables of this case and the maintenance thereof is unlawful.

Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act provides that " Ccorporeal movables under the co-ownership of the debtor and his/her spouse, which are possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed by the debtor with his/her spouse, may be seized pursuant to the provisions of Article 189." This provision also applies mutatis mutandis to co-owned corporeal movables owned by the married couple in a de facto marital relationship where they have the substance of common life of the married couple and do not only file a marriage report.