1. The Defendant’s execution of the construction cost case against the Gwangju District Court 2015 next April 42, 199.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 6, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution of corporeal movables under this Court No. 2017No. 2562 with the title of the payment order stated in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition against C, and on September 6, 2017, the Defendant executed compulsory execution of each of the objects listed in the Attachment List No. D and 301 (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”).

B. On December 24, 2014, the Plaintiff married with C on March 21, 2016, resulting in a divorce between C and C, and C, but C is registered as the resident of the loan of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] A.1-10 Evidence, 1-5 Evidence, 1-5 Evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant corporeal movables were owned by the Plaintiff and raised a third party objection, asserting that both of the instant corporeal movables were owned by the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that C is merely the most divorced for the purpose of evading compulsory execution against corporeal movables, in light of the fact that C and C are registered as the resident registration of the instant lending, and the vehicles under the joint name of C and the Plaintiff are parked in the instant lending, and the fishing club, which seems to belong to C, was discovered in the instant lending route.

B. The property, the title of which belongs to one of the married couple of the relevant legal principles, is presumed to be jointly owned by the married couple (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act); and the corporeal movables possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed by the spouse, as co-ownership by the debtor and his spouse

(A) Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act provides that “The presumption of a husband and wife’s public property and the seizure of corporeal movables jointly owned by a husband and wife shall be based on the premise that the marital relationship is maintained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da201233, Jul. 11, 2013).” In cases where the obligor and his/her spouse have divorced, a special circumstance exists that a couple’s de facto marital relationship still exists between