1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 9, 2020, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against Suwon District Court 2019Gabu24698 on the claim for return of investment deposit and received a favorable judgment on January 9, 2020, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On March 5, 2020, based on the executory exemplification of the above judgment on March 5, 2020, the Defendant attached each of the movables listed in the attached attachment list (hereinafter “the movables of this case”) in the building D and E (hereinafter “the domicile of this case”) residing in the Plaintiff and C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The instant movable property of the Plaintiff, regardless of C, is prepared as the help of the Plaintiff son.

The plaintiff and C have been divorced, and C has been released from the prison on July 2017 after having been sentenced to criminal punishment for a criminal case, and only temporarily lived in the domicile of this case.

The instant movable is owned by the Plaintiff and not jointly owned by C.

B. Although the Defendant and C were divorced in form, they were in de facto marital relationship, and even if they were to prepare the instant movable property with the help of children, this would be a donation to the Plaintiff and C, who is their parents.

The instant movable is a movable jointly owned by the Plaintiff and C.

3. Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act provides that “The corporeal movables owned by the debtor or jointly possessed by the debtor as co-ownership of the debtor and his spouse may be seized pursuant to the provisions of Article 189.”

This provision shall also apply mutatis mutandis to co-owned corporeal movables of a married couple in a de facto marital relationship in which only a marriage report is not filed, while having the substance of a marital life.

B. The compulsory execution against the movable property of this case was conducted at the domicile of this case where C is residing, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff and C, even though they were divorced, have lived at the same address as that of this case, and their children have provided the movable property of this case, and the Plaintiff and C moved at the domicile of this case on the same day.