beta
Text
1. On March 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) based on the original of the payment order with executive force of the Seoul Northern District Court 2012 tea 18614, the Seoul Northern District Court issued against C.
Reasons
Basic Facts
On July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff married with C.
On March 25, 2015, the Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 104 Dong 401 (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) according to the instant payment order on March 25, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of No. 1, the instant corporeal movables are either things owned before marriage with C or purchased at the Plaintiff’s expense. Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables ought to be denied.
Judgment
Attached Form
In full view of the evidence and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17 through 21, 23 through 25, and the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 10, and Gap evidence Nos. 13-1 and 2, the plaintiff resided with Eul on July 14, 2014, and continued to reside with Jung-gu D apartment No. 104, 104, and 401 around September 23, 2014, and the fact that the plaintiff purchased the remaining corporeal movables other than the above Nos. 1, 18, among each of the above corporeal movables, it is recognized that the credit card was possessed by the plaintiff before the marriage with Eul, and that the above Nos. 1, 18 had been possessed by the plaintiff.
According to the above facts, since each of the above corporeal movables is owned by the plaintiff, compulsory execution against each of the above corporeal movables is a violation of the plaintiff's ownership, and thus, it cannot be permitted.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff and C are legally married couple's co-ownership of each of the above goods and compulsory execution against each of the above goods is legitimate pursuant to Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act. However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff's unique property purchased each of the above goods in the plaintiff's name, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
Attached Form
Attachment List Nos. 2 through 6, 8, 11 through 13, 15 through 16.