1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On June 3, 2005, the plaintiff argued by the parties, the plaintiff was married with D on June 3, 2005, and the two children were only two children.

Since the Plaintiff’s ownership of the F apartment and G (hereinafter “instant apartment”) is also owned by the Plaintiff as well as the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”), the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the instant movable property based on the instant notarial deed against D ought to be denied.

In the meantime, Defendant D had his mother (the Plaintiff’s mother) live in a ancient history. The Defendant received an order from the Defendant to deposit the price into the Plaintiff’s passbook, and the Defendant sent clothes to the apartment that the Plaintiff and D live in, and D was hospitalized in the hospital, on the ground that D was the Plaintiff’s hospitalized in the hospital.

In addition, the defendant has paid a total of KRW 320 million to the bank account under the name of the plaintiff in several times according to D's instructions.

D and the plaintiff, even though they are married, make a false statement to evade their obligations, so the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Judgment

The proprietary property owned by one of the parties to a related law couple prior to marriage and the property acquired in his/her name during the marriage shall be the peculiar property (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act); the property whose name belongs to anyone of the married couple shall be presumed to be jointly owned by the married couple.

(Article 830(2) of the Civil Act provides that corporeal movables owned by the debtor or jointly possessed by the debtor as a co-ownership of the debtor and his spouse may be subject to seizure of corporeal movables pursuant to Article 189 of the Civil Execution Act (Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act). The above provision shall also apply mutatis mutandis to co-owned corporeal movables by the couple having a de facto marital relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da34273, Nov. 11, 1997). According to each of the statements in evidence A and 2 as to the instant case, D shall be subject to the judgment of the first and second evidence.