1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff’s primary claim: (1) Even if the seizure of Plaintiff becomes null and void due to the amendment of the Civil Execution Act to return unjust enrichment, the provisional seizure of Plaintiff and the Defendant still remains effective, and thus, the provisional seizure of Plaintiff and the Defendant were concurrent. As such, the Defendant collected the claim from the third obligor on behalf of all creditors by accepting a collection order under the concurrent situation, and thus, the Plaintiff may claim for distribution or delivery of the amount equivalent to the amount collected by the Defendant based on the validity of the provisional seizure against claim. However, the Defendant is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant acquired the full amount of the collection amount and obtained profits without any legal cause. (2) In the event of competition such as seizure, the obligee having reported unjust enrichment, and the obligee having reported the collection is obligated to deposit and report without delay the collection amount from the third obligor on behalf of all creditors participating in the seizure or distribution. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deposit and report the reasons for collection by deposit and report the collection amount under the collection order.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant filed a claim against D with the plaintiff without knowledge of the provisional attachment of the plaintiff, and received it through legitimate procedures cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment.

In addition, Article 246 (1) 6 of the Civil Execution Act, which was amended on July 23, 2010 and enforced on the same day, stipulates the amount to be preferentially reimbursed pursuant to Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as the claim to be prohibited from seizure, and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act.