beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On January 12, 2015, Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act provides that a notary public against B, who is the Plaintiff’s wife, shall attach the claim amount based on the Notarial Deed No. 4666 of Gangnam General Law Firm 2012, as KRW 60,000,00, and Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act provides that a co-owned share of B among movables listed in the attached list in the Plaintiff and B’s residence (hereinafter “the movable property of this case”) shall be jointly owned by the debtor and his spouse, or any corporeal movables possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed with his spouse may be seized pursuant to Article 189.
The attachment was made in accordance with the above.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff filed a report of marriage around May 2014 with B and B. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant movable was purchased with the Plaintiff’s funds, since the instant movable was the Plaintiff’s unique property, and the instant movable should not be subject to compulsory execution against B with a notarial deed, as it was the Plaintiff’s inherent property, while the Plaintiff was a director of the enforcement place on August 3, 2014 while the property management was separately carried out due to a large amount of debt incurred prior to marriage.
B. The plaintiff's assertion on the above goods is without merit, and the monitoring, washing machine, sexual harassment, and kimchi air conditioning is insufficient to conclude that the above goods used in the community life of the married couple are the plaintiff's unique property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and Article 830 (2) of the Civil Act presumed that the above goods are the plaintiff's unique property, since Article 830 (2) of the Civil Act presumed to be the co-owned property of the married couple, the above assertion on the premise that the movables in this case are the plaintiff's unique property is presumed to be co-owned by the married couple. Thus, the above assertion on the premise that the movables in this case are the plaintiff's unique property is not reasonable.
3. Conclusion