2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 3,253,430 and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff transferred the automobile of this case to the defendant on October 1, 2001. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that as to the automobile of this case after October 1, 2001, the plaintiff has the obligation to pay the above automobile to the defendant who is in operation until now after being transferred the automobile of this case.

B. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit.

In the lawsuit of confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is one of the most effective and appropriate means when there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous.

However, even if the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was rendered for the foregoing reasons, the obligation to pay taxes, public charges, and administrative fines imposed on the Plaintiff by the judgment is not transferred from the Plaintiff to the Defendant (the Plaintiff’s liability to pay taxes, public charges, and administrative fines imposed on the tax authority or the administrative agency imposing the tax authority solely on the foregoing judgment is not extinguished), and the said judgment cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s legal status unstable

Therefore, the part on the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay taxes, public charges, and fines among the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment on deemed confession: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act;