소유권이전등록
1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. The costs of the lawsuit.
1. On September 11, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around September 1, 2007, C lent the pertinent vehicle under its name when it purchased an automobile listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobile”); and (b) thereafter, the instant automobile was replaced only by the possession without the procedure for the registration of transfer; (c) around February 23, 2015, the Defendant purchased the instant automobile from a third party and operated the instant automobile after obtaining delivery of the instant vehicle, and then subscribed to the automobile insurance.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile on February 23, 2015, and the administrative fines and public charges incurred after February 23, 2015 regarding the instant automobile are the Defendant’s obligation to pay, and thus, the Defendant seeks confirmation.
2. Of the instant lawsuit, the determination on the legitimacy of the part of the claim for confirmation ought to be made ex officio, and in the lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights.
The benefit of confirmation is disputed between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized where the receiving of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate unstable risks when there is unstable risks in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). However, even if a judgment is rendered as asserted by the Plaintiff, the effect of the judgment does not directly affect the competent administrative agency imposing automobile tax and fine for negligence, etc., and the liability for payment of automobile tax and fine imposed on the Plaintiff as a matter of course on the Plaintiff is not transferred to the Defendant, and there is a separate procedure of objection against the imposition of automobile tax and fine for negligence, etc., in light of the fact that there is no separate procedure of objection against the disposition of imposition of automobile tax and fine for negligence, etc.,
3. Transfer of ownership: