beta
Text
The defendant is based on the executory payment order of the case of Gwangju District Court 2019j. 15694.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the marriage report with C.
B. On March 31, 2020, based on the executory exemplification of the executory payment order in the case No. 2019 tea15694, the Defendant rendered a seizure enforcement (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) with respect to each of the items listed in the attachment list in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju and E (hereinafter “each of the instant items”).
C. However, the articles except the articles listed in paragraphs 3, 4, 12, and 13 among the articles of this case are purchased or possessed by the Plaintiff prior to marriage with C. The articles listed in paragraphs 3 and 4 are donated from her mother and her mother, and the articles listed in paragraphs 12 and 13 are purchased by the Plaintiff’s money after filing a marriage report.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Pursuant to Article 830 of the Civil Act, determination on the cause of the claim, the property acquired by one side of the married couple in his/her name and the property acquired in his/her name during marriage shall be presumed to be his/her own property. Thus, each of the objects of this case shall be presumed to be the Plaintiff’s unique property, such
Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the compulsory execution of this case on each of the above items constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff's ownership, and thus, it cannot be permitted.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the above goods are jointly owned by the plaintiff and C, and the execution of the seizure of this case is lawful. However, the property whose identity belongs to the husband and wife is not clear shall be presumed to be jointly owned by the husband and wife (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act). However, as recognized earlier, the above goods are presumed to be owned by the plaintiff, not the property whose identity belongs to the husband and wife, but the property is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant'
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.