1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

According to the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Defendant, based on the original copy of the payment order stated in the claim against D, the Plaintiff’s spouse, conducted compulsory execution against the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”) on September 6, 2018.

The plaintiff asserts that since the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff as the goods purchased by the plaintiff, the above compulsory execution is unfair.

However, Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act provides that "The corporeal movables possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed by the spouse as co-ownership of the debtor and his spouse may be seized pursuant to the provisions of Article 189." Meanwhile, Article 830 (1) of the Civil Act provides that "the property owned by one side prior to marriage and the property acquired by one side in his name during marriage shall be regarded as its unique property." Article 830 (2) provides that "the property whose father belongs to any one side shall be presumed to be co-ownership of the father's property." Thus, there is no evidence to prove that the movable property in this case is proprietary property owned by the plaintiff prior to marriage or special property purchased by the plaintiff directly during marriage." Thus, the plaintiff's

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.