2. B

2. Each of the plaintiffs' claims against the above revocations are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

As to the Defendant: (a) KRW 25,593,245; (b) KRW 25,593,242; and (c) KRW 25,592;

From March 1, 2014 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against that part shall be dismissed.

A. Claim seizure and collection order by the plaintiffs and the defendant

1) As Seoul Central District Court 2013TTT No. 29435, Plaintiff A and B filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the debtor C District Housing Association, and the third debtor D. The above claim seizure and collection order were served to D on September 25, 2013.

2) The Plaintiff A and B filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the debtor C District Housing Association and the third debtor E as Seoul Central District Court 2013TT 29067. The above claim seizure and collection order were served to E on November 25, 2013.

3) On October 18, 2013, the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) filed an application for the attachment and collection order with the debtor C Housing Association, the third debtor D, and E, the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court”) on October 18, 2013, and the said court rendered a decision of acceptance on October 22, 2013. The above order of attachment and collection was sent to D on December 24, 2013, respectively.

(b) Reporting on the reasons for deposit and deposit of D or E;

1) On November 12, 2013, D deposited KRW 152,589,589 with the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Gold 2343, the Seoul Central District Court deposited KRW 152,589,589, and on such grounds, D entered that the Defendant’s order of seizure and collection was served on October 25, 2013 and deposited pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act as a concurrence between the respective claims seizure and collection order between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and reported the same date of deposit grounds.

2) On November 25, 2013, E deposited KRW 180,084,547 with the Seoul Central District Court 2013Hun-Ba4804, the Seoul Central District Court deposited KRW 180,084,547, and on such grounds, upon being served on November 25, 2013, stated that the Defendant’s order of seizure and collection was deposited under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act by competition between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s respective orders of seizure and collection, and reported the same day’s reasons for deposit.

(c) Distribution procedures;

1) On February 21, 2014, upon the deposit of D, the execution court made a distribution to the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, who demanded a distribution of the amount of KRW 152,69,456 in the F distribution procedure of the Seoul Central District Court on February 21, 2014, in proportion to the amount of credit as indicated below, and received the dividend from the Defendant.

The dividends of 38,855,602 won 38,855,602 won 85,604 won 74,988,250 won 25.46% 46% 45.46% 49.108% of the dividends of 25.46%

2) Upon the deposit of E, the executing court, on February 28, 2014, distributed dividends to the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, who demanded a distribution of KRW 180,201,140 as to the amount to be distributed in proportion to the amount of credit as shown below, and received dividends from the Defendant.

The amount of dividends paid to the Plaintiff A, B, the person who has the right to collect, who has the right to collect, who has the right to collect, 51, 153 won, 39,551, 154 won, 101,098, 833 won, 21.948% 21.948% 948% 56.103%

D. On the other hand, on April 28, 2009, a notary public signed a deed of promissory note with the payee C Housing Association, P&C C&C transfer source, I, joint and several surety amounting to KRW 23.4 billion, and the beneficiary’s promissory note as the defendant, as the certificate of H&C office No. 59 of 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant asserts to the purport that the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiffs, who did not appear on the date of distribution and raised an objection, is unlawful as it goes beyond the way of raising an objection to the dividend.

Since it is reasonable to determine the right under the final and conclusive distribution schedule to receive dividends pursuant to the substantive law, in cases where a creditor who is liable to receive dividends has received dividends without receiving dividends, a creditor who has not received dividends shall have the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against a person who received dividends even if he/she did not receive dividends, regardless of whether he/she raised an objection to the dividends, and the creditor who did not receive the dividends shall not be deemed as a general creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da26948, Mar. 13, 2001).

Therefore, the issue of whether the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment exists or not should be proved through the deliberation of the merits, so the defendant's defense of safety is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

The defendant's order of collection of seizure after D and E made a deposit for execution has no effect, and since the seizure and collection order of the defendant before the depositr's report is not served on the third debtor, the validity of the demand for distribution cannot be recognized. Thus, even though the defendant should be excluded from the above distribution procedure, the defendant distributed the distribution to the defendant.

Therefore, among the dividends received by the Defendant in D’s distribution procedure, the Defendant is obligated to return to Plaintiff A 12,48,847 won among the dividends paid to Plaintiff B, 13,144,398 won, 13,144,396 won, and the dividends paid to Plaintiff B in E’s distribution procedure, and 12,48,846 won to Plaintiff B as unjust enrichment. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to Plaintiff A 25,593,245 won (i.e., 13,144,398 won + 12,48,397 won + 12,48,247 won) and damages paid to the Plaintiff 25,593,242 won (=13,14,396 won + 12,48,846 won).

2) Defendant

A) After making a deposit between D and E, it is stated that the Defendant’s seizure and collection order was served after the deposit, but the service time cannot be determined merely by this.

B) Since the Defendant’s order to collect seizure has the effect of demanding a distribution, the distribution by the distribution procedure is lawful.

C) Only the creditor who raised an objection to the distribution may file a claim for return of unjust enrichment exceptionally, the plaintiff's claims cannot be allowed as abuse of rights, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have made unjust enrichment.

D) Preliminaryly, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant exercised their claim against the third obligor as the obligees of the C Regional Housing Association. Thus, the Defendant’s claim against the C Regional Housing Association is automatically set off to the same extent as the Plaintiffs’ claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

If a garnishee has made an execution deposit pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act or Articles 291 and 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act on the ground of seizure or provisional seizure, the claims subject to seizure against the garnishee shall be extinguished, and on the other hand, the seizure or provisional seizure order on the claims shall take effect upon the delivery to the garnishee to the third obligor (Articles 227(3) and 291 of the Civil Execution Act), and even if the seizure or provisional seizure order is issued upon the third obligor’s request, if it is served to the third obligor after the third obligor’s deposit was made, the seizure or provisional seizure order shall not take effect on the claims subject to seizure or provisional seizure already extinguished due to the execution deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da59391, Nov. 27, 2008).On the other hand, even if the seizure or provisional seizure order issued upon the third obligor’s request has been served after the third obligor’s deposit was made, it shall be acknowledged that the creditor has the right to demand for distribution by 20.

Article 247 (1) of the Civil Execution Act provides that "a creditor who has the right to preferential reimbursement under the Civil Act, the Commercial Act or any other Act and a creditor who has an executory exemplification may demand a distribution to the court not later than the time falling under any of the following subparagraphs," and subparagraph 1 provides that "a third-party debtor has reported a deposit under Article 248 (4)." The creditor other than the execution creditor permits a creditor to participate in the compulsory execution procedure for a claim by the method of demand for distribution and receive the repayment of his/her claim equally with the execution creditor, but on the other hand, he/she allows a third-party debtor

The reason why up to the time limit is that the third-party obligor may prevent confusion and delay in the distribution procedure until the time when the third-party obligor deposits the amount of debt and when the report on the reason is completed, so that the amount to be distributed can be confirmed and that the demand for distribution can be commenced (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da62688, May 14, 199).

2) Determination

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant’s order of seizure and collection was served upon D on December 24, 2013 to E on February 15, 2014, respectively, and it is evident that D reported the reason for execution deposit and deposit, and that E reported the reason for execution deposit and deposit. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24880, Nov. 12, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24870, Nov. 25, 2013>

As above, when the defendant's seizure and collection order was served to the third debtor D and E after the execution deposit, the defendant's seizure order is invalid because it is against the third debtor D and E already extinguished claims due to the execution deposit. The defendant's seizure order is not effective because it is not effective since the third debtor D and E have already been seized only a part of the monetary claims by the plaintiffs, since the whole amount of the monetary claims was deposited by the third debtor D and E, the monetary claims that affect the seizure of the plaintiffs are naturally execution deposit. However, since the part exceeding the provisional seizure amount of the plaintiffs does not have the effect of seizure, it shall be deemed as execution deposit rather than execution deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da74693, May 15, 2008).

However, in full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the whole arguments, the defendant's seizure and collection order was served after the execution deposit of D and E, which is the garnishee, but the fact that the plaintiffs and the defendant's seizure order are concurrently stated in each report on the grounds of deposit submitted by D and E to the court of execution. The case number and the copy of the decision on the seizure and collection order of the defendant are also stated.

As the court of execution was aware of the above facts until the time when the reason was reported, and the defendant holds a notarial deed, which is an executory exemplification, in the C Regional Housing Association, as the debtor is the debtor, and as long as the defendant's seizure and collection order was issued before the execution deposit was made, the validity of the seizure of the claim is recognized even if the seizure of the claim does not take effect. Thus, the distribution of the distribution by the execution court, which is the creditor and the defendant, is justifiable.

Therefore, as long as the dividend of the executing court is justified, the defendant cannot be deemed to have obtained an unjust profit, and the plaintiffs' assertion without any need to further examine the scope of unjust enrichment is without merit.

4.In conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is so unfair, so the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiffs' claims against the above cancellation shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Sung-sung

Judges Jeong Jin-hun