1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for a stay of compulsory execution 2015Kag188, March 18, 2015

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. B No. 1.

On January 13, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant judgment”) on the provisional execution declaration stating that “The Defendant (C) shall pay KRW 6 million to the Plaintiff (the Defendant in this case) and delay damages therefrom,” which filed a lawsuit against C in Busan District Court No. 2014Gada59095, Jan. 13, 2015.

B. According to the instant judgment on March 2, 2015, the Defendant executed a seizure of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) in the Kimhae-si D and Lee Dong-dong 502 (hereinafter “instant execution place”), which is the Plaintiff’s domicile, on March 2, 2015.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the corporeal movables in this case located at the place of execution of this case are owned by the plaintiff and owned by the plaintiff, the execution of this case by the execution title against C should not be allowed.

B. An ambiguous property is presumed to be jointly owned by a husband and wife (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act); corporeal movables owned by the debtor or jointly possessed with his/her spouse, as co-ownership of the debtor and his/her spouse, may be seized (Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act). This shall also apply mutatis mutandis to jointly owned corporeal movables owned by a husband and wife in a de facto marital relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da34273, Nov. 11, 1997). In this case, the following circumstances, namely, (a) there is no dispute between the parties, or it is recognized that the Plaintiff was living with C from time to time by becoming aware of the entire arguments in each statement in the evidence No. 1 through No. 3, 1999, and (b) the Plaintiff was deemed to have been living with C around June 2011.