1. The defendant is based on the executory exemplification of the payment order issued by the Seoul Southern District Court 2015 tea 22838 against B.

The legal provisions pertaining to this case are Article 830(2) of the Civil Act, and Article 830(2) of the Civil Act provides that "any property whose father belongs to any of the married couple shall be presumed to be co-ownership of the married couple."

We examine this case.

The Plaintiff and Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015Hu22838 (hereinafter “instant payment order”) did not conflict between the parties, but in full view of the purport of pleadings as to the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the Plaintiff and B: (i) only maintained a marital life from July 2014 to November 2014; and (ii) failed to perform each other’s living and duty to support; (iii) the attached attachment attachment list (hereinafter “instant attachment list”) purchased the instant property from the Plaintiff on July 13, 2015, when the Plaintiff’s mother was in fact married to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on July 13, 2015, when the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was extinguished; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s owner of the instant property is obviously the Plaintiff, and thus, it is unlawful to request the execution officer of the instant judgment to grant the Plaintiff the original payment order based on B’s executory execution against the instant property.