1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's primary claim is added in the trial.

1. We examine, ex officio, whether this part of the lawsuit added in the trial is legitimate.

A lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is a lawsuit seeking the alteration of a distribution schedule prepared by the distribution court on the premise that a person who has an objection to the distribution schedule has an substantive right, and constitutes a lawsuit of formation under the Civil Procedure Act. As can be seen, a lawsuit of formation with the aim of forming a change in existing legal relations is not permissible only where there are express provisions in Acts and subordinate statutes and where there are no legal grounds therefor.

Article 80 through 84 of the National Tax Collection Act, which provides for the distribution of property belonging to the Korea Asset Management Corporation by the head of a tax office or the head of a tax office for a public sale agent under Article 98 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, provides for the method of distribution, the preparation of a distribution statement, the procedure for objection by a delinquent taxpayer against a distribution statement, the deposit of distributed money, etc. However, there are no provisions that stipulate a lawsuit of objection corresponding to a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution under the Civil Execution Act, or that Article 154 of the Civil Execution Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the distribution of property belonging to the Korea Asset Management Corporation.

However, among the lawsuit of this case, the main claim is seeking correction of the above distribution calculation statement itself, and appears to be a lawsuit of revocation of disposition of distribution corresponding to the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution or a lawsuit of objection against distribution, which is unlawful since it filed a lawsuit of formation without legal basis.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the conjunctive claim is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the court’s explanation of the conjunctive claim is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. If so, the plaintiff's primary claim of this case is unlawful and all of it is dismissed, and the preliminary claim is justified, and it is accepted.