1. An executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Defendant on October 27, 2016, with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2016Da21113 Decided October 27, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 27, 2016, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Jeonju District Court 2016 Ghana 2113, the Defendant seized the articles listed in the attached list in the Plaintiff’s residence (hereinafter “instant movables”).

B. Upon completion of the marriage report on May 24, 1993, the Plaintiff and C divorced on August 25, 2016. At the time of the said divorce, the instant movable was occupied and used in the said residence after the Plaintiff agreed to own the instant movable at the time of the said divorce.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment on the cause of the claim and the divorce on August 25, 2016 by the Plaintiff and C are as seen earlier, and according to the above facts of recognition, the movable of this case possessed by the Plaintiff at his residence is owned by the Plaintiff. Thus, compulsory execution based on the executive title against C on the premise that the movable of this case is owned by C is owned by C, and thus, compulsory execution against the movable of this case should be dismissed.

3. On the part of the defendant's argument, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff and C reside together even after their divorce and actually maintain marital relations, they can enforce compulsory execution against the plaintiff and C's co-owned property.

Property of which identity belongs to anyone of the married couple is presumed to be co-ownership by the married couple (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act); and corporeal movables possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed by the debtor and his spouse as co-ownership by the debtor and his spouse may be seized (Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act). Such presumption of public property of the married couple and seizure of corporeal movables jointly owned by the couple should be based on the premise that the marital relationship

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da201233, Jul. 11, 2013). Therefore, in cases where the debtor and his/her spouse are mixed with each other, such an agreement may be deemed to exist, regardless of the divorce.