1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 28, 2015, the Plaintiff is the wife B, and B entered into a lease agreement with the lessor, setting the lessor’s name, setting the deposit amount of KRW 220 million, and the lease period from February 27, 2015 to February 27, 2017, with the lessee’s name, for lease KRW 129, 1101, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. B was indicted on February 24, 2016 for the establishment of a gambling space, etc., and was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for four years and for additional collection of 500 million won on August 19, 2016 by the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2016No302, August 19, 2016; on February 10, 2017, the punishment of imprisonment with labor for four years and six months and for additional collection of 500 million won was sentenced by the Incheon District Court Decision 2016No3513, Feb. 18, 2017.

C. On February 25, 2016, the investigative prosecutor of the instant case filed an application for the preservation for the levying of penalties against B as to the lease deposit refund claim listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “lease deposit refund claim”) in order to compensate for the additional collection of criminal proceeds from the crime committed against B by the Busan District Court Branch Decision 2016Hu157, and the said court determined the preservation for the levying of penalties on March 2, 2016 and executed the preservation for the levying of penalties on March 6, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case is KRW 220 million, and 180 million among them is the plaintiff's property, so the execution of this case under the premise that the claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case is the property B should be rejected.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that since the claim for return of the lease deposit of this case is the property B, the execution based on the decision of the collection preservation of this case is justifiable.

3. Determination

A. “The Defendant’s property” that can be prohibited from disposal by issuing an order of preservation for collection under Article 52 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, Etc., which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 12 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, is in substance whatever the name may be