beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s original copy of the judgment with executory power in the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016 Ghana386774 against C.
Reasons
1. In full view of the reasoning of the evidence evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the Defendant’s judgment No. 2016Gau386774, which the Seoul Western District Court rendered against C as the executive title, requested the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables as to each of the instant movables on July 22, 2019 as indicated in the attached article list located inside the Asan City D apartment and E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “each of the instant movables”), which was located inside the ASEAN apartment and E (hereinafter “instant apartment”), was seized on the same day by requesting the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables as to each of the instant movables on the same day.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that since each of the instant movables is owned by the plaintiff, compulsory execution against each of the instant movables based on the enforcement title C shall not be allowed.
On the other hand, the defendant asserts that since C is living together with the plaintiff, each of the movables of this case is owned by C.
B. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 6, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment from G on June 17, 2018, with the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000. ② From June 16, 2018 to July 24, 2018, the Plaintiff may acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff purchased the remaining movable property except for Nos. 1, 9, and the card recognition slip.
① The following circumstances revealed in light of the fact that the above paragraph (2) was acknowledged, namely, the apartment of this case was leased by the Plaintiff in the name of the Plaintiff. Each of the instant apartment of this case was located inside the apartment of this case, and the date of acquisition, value, and payment method of the remaining movables except for the movables Nos. 1 and 9 in the attached Table Nos. 1 and 9. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to view each of the instant movable properties as movable property acquired by the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff’s funds.