1. Defendant . Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on November 29, 2012 in the case of the distribution procedure B by the Goyang District Court Goyang Branch B.

1. Basic facts

A. From the distribution procedure B (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”) with respect to the deposit amounting to KRW 90,005,526 of the East Tourist Tour Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “debtor”), the distribution schedule was formulated in order to distribute KRW 27,737,411 out of KRW 195,538,314 out of the total amount of KRW 195,538,314 to the Defendant Si, who is the taxation right holder, to November 29, 2012, to the Defendant Si, who is the collection right holder, to whom KRW 3,751,710, and the total amount of KRW 58,516,405, to the Defendant Company, who is the collection right holder, to the Plaintiff, the provisional attachment right holder, to the third amount of credit (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

B. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the total amount of each dividend to the Defendants, and thereafter, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on the said date.

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

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Si

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant distribution schedule should be revised by allocating the amount of dividends to the Defendant City to the Plaintiff, because the name of the local tax claim against the Defendant City obligor Company ought to be cancelled ex officio due to the cancellation of the registration of passenger transport business or the excess of the age limit for the Defendant Company, even though the registration of the Defendant Company has not been actually taken over, and thus, the registration should be cancelled ex officio.

However, even if there was no actual vehicle acquisition as alleged by the plaintiff, since the vehicle is registered in the debtor's name, it is difficult to view the imposition of acquisition tax as invalid.

In addition, even if the registration of passenger transport service was cancelled or exceeded, the competent authorities can cancel the registration ex officio, and it does not necessarily have an obligation to cancel the registration (Article 13 (3) of the Automobile Management Act), and it imposes automobile tax without cancelling the market price ex officio.