1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The first instance court shall suspend compulsory execution.

Facts of recognition

In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, based on the payment order issued by the Hongcheon-gun District Court of 2015 tea 358, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, the defendant, on October 17, 2017, seized the articles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the articles of this case"), and the plaintiff, on around 1995, was naturalization in the Republic of Korea, and after marriage with Eul around 200, the facts are recognized.

Plaintiff’s assertion

Since the execution of seizure of the article of this case is illegal because it is against the article not owned by the debtor C, the plaintiff as the owner of the article of this case can seek the exclusion of the above compulsory execution.

Judgment

The pertinent legal doctrine is presumed to be the special property of the nominal owner of the property acquired by one spouse in one’s name during the marriage. However, when it is proved that the other spouse or both parties have acquired the property at the cost of the property, the presumption of special property should be deemed to have been reversed, and the presumption of special property shall be deemed to have

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da25695 delivered on October 12, 1995). Ccorporeal movables jointly possessed by the debtor and his/her spouse, which are possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed with his/her spouse, may be seized.

(Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act (Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act). Examining the issue of whether the instant goods are the goods owned by the Plaintiff, according to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 3 through 7, the sales contract of the instant goods was concluded in the name of the Plaintiff, and the installment was paid from

However, the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, and 29 are considered as the whole of the pleadings in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize the goods of this case as the plaintiff's unique property only with the above facts acknowledged. Rather, the goods of this case are the plaintiff's husband.