1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married and are residing in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

B. According to the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2017Gahap1378 Decided June 14, 2018, the Defendant seized C’s movables listed in the attached list Nos. D and 3rd E (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) located in Songpa-gu Seoul, the residence of C on December 4, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant corporeal movables are not owned by C, but owned by the Plaintiff’s unique properties, and thus, the Defendant’s execution of seizure is not permissible.

B. (1) Determination (1) The property acquired by one of the married couple in his own revenue and name shall be deemed as a sole ownership of the property acquired with the special property, but the property, for which it is not clear who belongs to either couple, shall be presumed as co-ownership by the married couple. The corporeal movables jointly possessed by the debtor and his spouse, or jointly possessed by the debtor and his spouse, may be seized.

(2) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3, 5, 10, and 11 of this case, it is acknowledged that money was paid from the account or credit card in the Plaintiff’s name with respect to the instant corporeal movables, but such fact alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant corporeal movables were the unique property acquired by the Plaintiff in his own name and name. Rather, it is acknowledged that the instant corporeal movables were included in the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, and 8 and the overall arguments were added to the following circumstances, namely, that the Plaintiff and C jointly resided in the seizure place as a couple, that the Defendant jointly resided in the seizure place, that the Defendant operated the F’s mutual intent and carried out income activities, and that the instant corporeal movables were the goods ordinarily used by the entire family members. Considering that the instant corporeal movables are presumed to be jointly owned by the Plaintiff and C, and that they are goods necessary for the common life of both spouses, the Plaintiff