1. The Defendant’s notary public against C, No. 596, 2018, written by D on October 10, 2018, signed by D on October 1, 2018.

1. On October 2, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased each of the movables listed in [Attachment 1 and 2] Nos. 1 and 2, and on October 6, 2018, each of the movables listed in Attached Attachment 3.

The defendant delegated the execution of seizure of corporeal movables to the execution officer of this court based on the No. 596 of the 2018 Bill No. 596 prepared by D on October 10, 2018 by a notary public against C.

On July 29, 2019, the enforcement officer of this Court seized each of the movables listed in the attachment list in the building E and F of the building in Ansan-gu where the plaintiff and C reside in Ansan-si, where the plaintiff and C reside.

The plaintiff is a couple who completed the marriage report with C on February 21, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4-1, 4-2, 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) The proprietary property owned by one of the married couple prior to marriage, and the property acquired in his/her name during the marriage shall be the special property, and the property whose name belongs to anyone of the married couple is unclear shall be presumed to be jointly owned by the

(Article 830 of the Civil Act). Ccorporeal movables under a co-ownership of the debtor and his spouse, which are possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed with his spouse, may be seized.

(Articles 190 and 189 of the Civil Execution Act). (b)

According to the above facts, each movable set forth in Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the Attachment List Nos. 1, 2, and 3 is purchased by the plaintiff before marriage and owned by the plaintiff (the plaintiff's unique property), so the above compulsory execution by the defendant should be denied

As to this, the defendant asserts that the above movables are jointly used by the plaintiff's husband and wife, and the co-ownership shares are half, so it is possible to enforce the defendant's compulsory execution. However, the above argument is rejected as there is no reasonable ground

C. Each movable set forth in the Attachment Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, other than the above movable property, is not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s unique property, or the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone. The said movable property is a movable in a place where the Plaintiff and C reside, and is jointly owned by two persons.