2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

However, the defendant operated the automobile of this case without transferring the registered name concerning the automobile of this case, and did not pay the fine for negligence and automobile tax even though it did not occur.

Therefore, after September 30, 2002, it is sought to confirm that the obligation to pay administrative fines and automobile taxes imposed in the name of the plaintiff in relation to the operation of the instant vehicle is the defendant.

2. In a lawsuit for confirmation of a judgment on the defense of safety, the benefit of confirmation has a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to the lawsuit, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the plaintiff's legal status as a confirmation judgment to eliminate such apprehension and danger when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005). Even if the plaintiff is rendered a confirmation judgment against the defendant for the same reason as the plaintiff alleged, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not affect the State or local government only between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, it cannot be set up against the competent administrative agency imposed by the judgment or the fine for negligence, and the obligation to pay the plaintiff's public imposts, etc. registered as the owner in the motor vehicle register cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to remove the plaintiff's legal status and danger.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful.