beta
Text
1. The Defendant has the executive force of the Decision 2015ddan628 Decided May 19, 2016, rendered by the Chuncheon District Court in relation to C.
Reasons
1. The following facts are found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 7, 8, 12, and Eul evidence 2-1:
A. On December 30, 2014, the Seoul Family Court 2014da322017 divorce and consolation money case filed by the Plaintiff against C, which became final and conclusive a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that “the Plaintiff and C are divorced, and C are paying consolation money to the Plaintiff, and the children’s person with parental authority and children are designated as the Plaintiff.”
B. On May 19, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C, who is the former husband of the Plaintiff, seeking the payment of consolation money, as the Seocho District Court Branching 2015Ddan628, and the said court rendered a judgment that C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 18 million and the damages for delay thereof, and the said judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.
C. Based on the executory exemplification of the above judgment, the Defendant filed an application for the execution of seizure of corporeal movables in Dobong-gu Seoul, the domicile of the Plaintiff, which was classified as the Plaintiff’s residence of this court D, and in F, the enforcement officer of this court, who was entrusted with the execution by the Defendant, seized corporeal movables in the attached list (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) on October 17, 2018 (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”).
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The parties’ assertion 1) The plaintiff C was divorced from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff C was able to live separately at the plaintiff’s domicile due to the problem of raising his children, but did not have a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, and all of the corporeal movables of this case are owned by the plaintiff, so the execution of this case is unlawful. 2) The defendant C maintained a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff while residing in the plaintiff’s domicile after divorce, and most of the corporeal movables of this case were purchased during the marriage of the plaintiff C, and thus, they constitute public
(b).