1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In around 2011, Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) filed a lawsuit against Defendant E (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) on the delivery of F apartment Nos. 103 and 1001 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and on the filing date of a claim for unjust enrichment by the completion date of delivery of the instant apartment, and on June 4, 201, the judgment accepting the above claim of Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the judgment of this case, such as the surrender of the instant apartment”) was rendered (hereinafter “the judgment of this case”).

B. On July 27, 2012, Defendant D, an execution officer affiliated with the Jung-gu District Court, conducted delivery execution of the apartment of this case under the Jung-gu District Court No. 2013526 on the ground that the judgment of this case, such as building name map, etc., was executive titles.

Defendant D, while executing a delivery of the instant apartment, kept corporeal movables in the said apartment in the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”), and accordingly, the Defendant Company kept the instant corporeal movables in G, a custodian company, in G.

A written statement of delivery execution of the apartment of this case contains an indication that two participants participated in the above execution.

C. On August 23, 2012, Defendant D seized the instant corporeal movables by using the instant judgment as the executive title, such as the name map of a building, etc., and on September 19, 2012, Defendant D notified C of the date and time of sale of the instant corporeal movables from October 20, 2012 to December 20, 2012, the place of sale was G in both weeks, and the minimum sale price was KRW 2,390,00.

The auction for the instant corporeal movables was held on October 9, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 and 4 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Defendant D, an execution officer belonging to the 1-Government District Court, did not notify the execution date to the apartment of this case without notifying the gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion.