1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. B around December 2014, through a public sale procedure, purchased the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Apartment 101 Dong 703 and 107 Dong 302 of the same apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the above apartment units around that time.

B. At the time of December 2014, the Defendant: (a) attached a public notice to the door of each of the above apartment units of this case to the effect that the Defendant exercised a right of retention; and (b) occupied them with locks; (c) was deprived of the Defendant’s possession by way of installing a new lock by incidental locks.

C. On December 30, 2014, the Defendant filed a provisional injunction against possession transfer (Seoul Central District Court 2014Kadan813564, Seoul Central District Court 2014) with respect to each of the above apartment units of this case with the debtor C on December 30, 2014, and this Court decided to accept provisional injunction on January 9, 2015.

On January 14, 2015, the enforcement officer of this Court completed the execution of the provisional disposition order of this case as to each of the above apartment units of this case by attaching a notice stating the contents of the provisional disposition order of this case on January 14, 2015.

E. C arbitrarily removed a notice attached to the above heading room, and concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on May 4, 2015 with respect to the instant apartment Nos. 101, 703, and delivered the instant apartment Nos. 107, 302 to the Plaintiff. As to the instant apartment Nos. 107, 302, the lease agreement was concluded with the Plaintiff, and the said real estate was delivered to the Plaintiff B on April 30, 2015.

F. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against C and the Plaintiffs regarding the recovery of possession. On September 11, 2015, the Defendant accepted the Defendant’s claim against C on September 201, 2015, and on the other hand, there is insufficient evidence to deem C was known to the Plaintiffs, the special successor to C of the deprived Party C, and the said judgment dismissed the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiffs.