beta
Text
1. The Defendant has the executory power in the Suwon District Court of Sung-nam Branch case 201j701.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 1, 2016, the Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) on the basis of the executory payment order for the case 201j701, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, the Seoul District Court of Gwangju-si, and based on the executory payment order for the case 201j701.
B. At the time of the above seizure, enforcement officers did not visit C at the execution place, and the Plaintiff refused to open the door, thereby having two witnesses participate in the opening, and had the key air open to open the door, and enforced the seizure following the execution.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading
2. The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the instant corporeal movables were purchased by the Plaintiff, compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff based on the Defendant’s executive title against C is unreasonable.
As to this, the defendant asserts to the purport that the defendant may seize the corporeal movables, since they are jointly and severally owned by the couple, the plaintiff is residing together in C and the execution place of this case.
According to the evidence No. 3, although it is recognized that C registered as a resident at the place of execution of this case on January 26, 2016, the above facts of recognition, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 5 are not sufficient to recognize that C C corporeal movables are owned by or jointly owned by the married couple, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Rather, the above facts, evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 6 are considered as follows. The execution place of this case is owned by the defendant. The defendant married with C, but the defendant appears to have purchased the corporeal movables at his own expense, and the defendant appears to have purchased the corporeal movables at his own expense. In light of the above facts, the corporeal movables of this case constitute marital co-ownership.