1. On November 27, 2018, based on the executory exemplification of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Gadan9232 rendered against C by the Defendant.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant corporeal movables are unique properties purchased by the Plaintiff, not C, and thus, the instant compulsory execution should be denied.

2. We examine the judgment, and Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act provides that corporeal movables jointly possessed by the debtor and his spouse, which are possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed by the debtor's spouse, may be seized pursuant to the provisions of Article 189. The above provisions apply mutatis mutandis to co-owned corporeal movables jointly possessed by the married couple in a de facto marital relationship where they have the substance of a marital community and do not report a marriage (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da34273, Nov. 11, 1997). In this case, there is no dispute between the plaintiff and C in a de facto marital relationship, and in full view of the purport of entry in the evidence No. 9 and the oral argument No. 1, at the time of compulsory execution as stated in the Disposition No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff and C jointly occupied the instant corporeal movables in their residential areas (D

Furthermore, since the corporeal movables in this case are not clear to whom the married couple belongs, it is presumed that they belong to the co-ownership of the married couple pursuant to Article 830(2) of the Civil Act. Each entry in the evidence Nos. 3 through 8 alone, which corresponds to the list Nos. 3 through 16 of the attached Table Nos. 3 through 16, the plaintiff bears the burden

Since it is insufficient to recognize that such presumption is a unique property acquired in the name of the plaintiff or acquired in the name of the plaintiff, the presumption is not reversed.

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that he is a teacher of the Pianianianianianianianianianianianianianianianianianians listed in the table Nos. 1 and 2 attached hereto cannot be viewed as a climaticians used in the daily life of the married couple, and it is deemed that the above presumption is reversed.

Therefore, the part of the compulsory execution of this case against each respondent as set out in the table 1 and 2 of the attached list should be dismissed.